• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."


Mother Jones has quite the piece on a Cruz, in 2007 as Solicitor General, defending fiercely the dildo ban in Texas, going so far as to say a person does not have the right to masturbate, well...more or less.

Read the piece to get the bones of the case, and a bit more on his 76 page brief but this part here, just - Wow.

=====================
"The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex."

The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.

In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices."

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos | Mother Jones

The case was shot down by the judges, but Cruz and his office stood firm, and appealed. The story notes Cruz was considering fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,548
Reaction score
33,905
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."

Mother Jones has quite the piece on a Cruz, in 2007 as Solicitor General, defending fiercely the dildo ban in Texas, going so far as to say a person does not have the right to masturbate, well...more or less.

Read the piece to get the bones of the case, and a bit more on his 76 page brief but this part here, just - Wow.

=====================
"The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex."

The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.

In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices."

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos | Mother Jones

The case was shot down by the judges, but Cruz and his office stood firm, and appealed. The story notes Cruz was considering fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Remind me again what the Democrats defense of Hillary defending a child-molester was?
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
15,254
Reaction score
4,417
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wow, they sure are digging deep for anything, and I mean anything, they can find. Have they interviewed his Kindergarten teacher yet? LOL!
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Remind me again what the Democrats defense of Hillary defending a child-molester was?

There is no defense beyond the fact that she was the court appointed attorney for him and required, by law and her oath, to zealously defend him in court. You are not allowed to recuse yourself simply because you believe your client is guilty.

Ted Cruz, as a solicitor general, has a similar obligation to defend state laws challenged in court - although they do have the authority to refuse to defend a law that they find to clearly be unconstitutional. I suppose that Cruz did not believe a ban on the sale of sex toys to be clearly unconstitutional.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,548
Reaction score
33,905
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no defense beyond the fact that she was the court appointed attorney for him and required, by law and her oath, to zealously defend him in court. You are not allowed to recuse yourself simply because you believe your client is guilty.

Oh. So it was her job?

Okedoke.

What was Ted Cruz's job at the time?

Ted Cruz, as a solicitor general, has a similar obligation to defend state laws challenged in court - although they do have the authority to refuse to defend a law that they find to clearly be unconstitutional. I suppose that Cruz did not believe a ban on the sale of sex toys to be clearly unconstitutional.

Ah. So all that this story really means is that he does not think that the Constitution keeps a state from banning or restricting sale of an item in its borders.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."


Mother Jones has quite the piece on a Cruz, in 2007 as Solicitor General, defending fiercely the dildo ban in Texas, going so far as to say a person does not have the right to masturbate, well...more or less.

Read the piece to get the bones of the case, and a bit more on his 76 page brief but this part here, just - Wow.

=====================
"The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex."

The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.

In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices."

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos | Mother Jones

The case was shot down by the judges, but Cruz and his office stood firm, and appealed. The story notes Cruz was considering fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Is it your assertion that the sale of dildos is in fact protected by the constitution?

That's in the 28th Amendment, right?
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"The brief compared the use of sex toys with"hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy...

"There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.
"

Read that again -- and again. And again. And tell us how conservatives who defend this idiocy are small government-minded, and that statement right there is *not* sheer lunacy.

Go on small-gov cons, blow your wad explaining how that is defensible.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh. So it was her job?

Okedoke.

What was Ted Cruz's job at the time?



Ah. So all that this story really means is that he does not think that the Constitution keeps a state from banning or restricting sale of an item in its borders.
No, it means the Cruz believed that the constitution allows a state to ban the sale of dildoes

Which means that he's either a moron (unlikely) or deranged (most definitely)
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"The brief compared the use of sex toys with"hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy...

"There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.
"

Read that again -- and again. And again. And tell us how conservatives who defend this idiocy are small government-minded, and that statement right there is *not* sheer lunacy.

Go on small-gov cons, blow your wad explaining how that is defensible.

You get bonus points for asking them to "blow their wad" defending the position that they have no constitutional right to blow their wad
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,548
Reaction score
33,905
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, it means the Cruz believed that the constitution allows a state to ban the sale of dildoes

Which means that he's either a moron (unlikely) or deranged (most definitely)

Or a Constitutionalist (most likely) who thinks that the 10th Amendment actually means something.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,548
Reaction score
33,905
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, he believes it means something it does not actually mean

:shrug: it says everything else is left up to the people and the states. The States have broad Police Powers under our Constitution - the Federal government is supposed to be the one whose realm is narrow in scope. The states have much more freedom of action than the Feds do in items like this.
 

shagg

Wading Through Bull****
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
1,219
Location
Rhode Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Apparently some people have a very narrow definition of "The pursuit of happiness".

Violates one of the big 3, I don't see how anyone could mistake that for constitutional
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,548
Reaction score
33,905
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hmmm, I can believe an anonymous poster on the internet, or the courts.

What to do? What to do?
You listen to cpwill. Always listen to cpwill.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, it means the Cruz believed that the constitution allows a state to ban the sale of dildoes

Which means that he's either a moron (unlikely) or deranged (most definitely)

No, it doesn't even mean that much. It means that Cruz's opponents are stupidly trying to slam him for doing his job as a lawyer, which is completely bogus. For all we know Cruz likes dildos.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You listen to cpwill. Always listen to cpwill.

gg-songs-27-638.jpg
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
i bet ted cruz has a whole closet full of dildos
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, it doesn't even mean that much. It means that Cruz's opponents are stupidly trying to slam him for doing his job as a lawyer, which is completely bogus. For all we know Cruz likes dildos.

pick a different profession if you don't want criticism. The guy is scum, like most lawyers
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,332
Reaction score
35,397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:shrug: it says everything else is left up to the people and the states. The States have broad Police Powers under our Constitution - the Federal government is supposed to be the one whose realm is narrow in scope. The states have much more freedom of action than the Feds do in items like this.

And that freedom absolutely does not include my preferred methods of jerking off.
 
Top Bottom