Plan B Forum

New York: In his former career as Texas' solicitor general, Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz once mounted a fervent defence of a ban on the sale of dildos and other sex toys to protect "public morals".




The 2007 case has resurfaced in a tense Republican campaign in which Senator Cruz, a deeply conservative Tea Party-favourite, is running second only to Donald Trump.

While Senator Cruz has often touted his record in opposing abortion and same-sex marriage, the American news website Mother Jones published an article on Tuesday reminding its readers about a lesser-known case Senator Cruz was involved in.

At the time, Texas was one of several US states that banned the sale and promotion of sex toys or "obscene devices" – dildos, artificial vaginas and other devices "primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs".

Two companies which owned stores or online retailers selling such devices decided to challenge that law. They argued it violated Americans' constitutional rights, including a First Amendment – or free speech – right to market such devices, and a Fourteenth Amendment-related right to privacy.

Their case was initially rejected by a judge but the retailers appealed, leaving the Texas Attorney General and his team, which included solicitor general Cruz, to mount a renewed defence as to why the law should be upheld. Their argument centred on the notion that, essentially, there was no right to masturbation using such devices, and that the ban was in keeping with the state's interest in protecting public morals.

In their lengthy brief, Mr Cruz and the team pointed out that the law did not prevent Texans from using the devices, merely from selling or marketing them, and that "no fundamental right" was at stake.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election ... z45liheJlt
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Gob wrote: Their case was initially rejected by a judge but the retailers appealed, leaving the Texas Attorney General and his team, which included solicitor general Cruz, to mount a renewed defence as to why the law should be upheld. Their argument centred on the notion that, essentially, there was no right to masturbation using such devices, and that the ban was in keeping with the state's interest in protecting public morals.

Bicycle Bill wrote:That picture would have been improved immensely if she had been wearing a big ol' strap-on.

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote:That picture would have been improved immensely if she had been wearing a big ol' strap-on.

-"BB"-

Long Run wrote:While it is easy to be titillated by the headline of this, it is really about a public lawyer doing his job.

Gob wrote: Their case was initially rejected by a judge but the retailers appealed, leaving the Texas Attorney General and his team, which included solicitor general Cruz, to mount a renewed defence as to why the law should be upheld. Their argument centred on the notion that, essentially, there was no right to masturbation using such devices, and that the ban was in keeping with the state's interest in protecting public morals.

The law was upheld at the trial court level, and was found unconstitutional in a 2-1 decision at the appellate level. So, it was a reasonable but ultimately non-compelling defense. This says nothing about whether Cruz actually was or was not in favor of the law, only that he was doing his assigned task. Go find one of the many legitimate things to bust Ted over the noggin' with.

There have been recent examples of AGs refusing to defend laws which they thought were unconstitutional.

Burning Petard wrote:Yep, Rubato, also some recent examples of county clerks refusing to do their job because they thought it was just plain wrong to issue certain marriage licenses.

So who is the good guy, the one who enforces and obeys the law as written, or the one who answers to a higher authority? Right now it sort of looks to me as if it just depends on one's own pre-existing opinion.

snailgate


.

The difference in the authority and roles of a county clerk and the atty General does not seem important to you? Holy fuck.


yrs,
rubato

Burning Petard wrote:Both the County Clerk and the Attorney Generals alluded to here are elected officials choosing to not do the job they sought and were elected to do.

Yes, I hold the president of the United States and the county prothonotary (the least influential elected office I know of in New Castle County Delaware) to the same standard of duty and honor.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I still don't understand all this fuss over the main ingredient in dill bread?

Sec. 7. Other elective officers.

(1) Officers. A Secretary of State, an Auditor, a Treasurer, a Superintendent of Public Instruction, an Attorney General, a Commissioner of Agriculture, a Commissioner of Labor, and a Commissioner of Insurance shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State in 1972 and every four years thereafter, at the same time and places as members of the General Assembly are elected. Their term of office shall be four years and shall commence on the first day of January next after their election and continue until their successors are elected and qualified.

(2) Duties. Their respective duties shall be prescribed by law.

114-2. Duties.

It shall be the duty of the Attorney General:

(1)To defend all actions in the appellate division in which the State shall be interested, or a party, and to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested.