The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

[Moon]

Barring sufficient state interest in doing so, correct.

So I guess the question is who gets to decide if the state has sufficient interest or not.

 

[Ntharotep]

Maybe Cruz felt threatened by BOB's performance?

Sorry but that's about how seriously this deserves to be treated...

 

[Absentglare]

I believe his comment was "the same defense that Democrats used to defend Hillary Clinton's defense of a child molester"

Ergo, stealing the transitive property from math....

If Democrats defense of Hillary Clinton was that it was her job to defend her client to the absolute best of her ability despite her own feelings or views....

And the defense of Ted Cruz is the same as the defense of Democrats used for Hillary Clinton...

Then the defense of Ted Cruz is the fact he was doing his job to defend his client (the state) to the absolute best of his ability despite his own feelings or views.

And if he had articulated the argument, you might have a point.

Problem is, he didn't, and so you don't. It was a drive by deflection.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

But I believe you can if, in the the best interests of you client, you find you cannot adequately defend him.

I don't have an issue with her defending a child molester. Lawyers have a legal and ethical responsibility to zealously defend their clients and even child molesters are entitled to that defense.

 

[Mr Person]

Ok? So? Is it really that big of an indictment of his character? As opposed to lying about things constantly and being behind several big scandals?

He also lies about things constantly, so there's that.

 

[Absentglare]

But I believe you can if, in the the best interests of you client, you find you cannot adequately defend him.

I don't have an issue with her defending a child molester. Lawyers have a legal and ethical responsibility to zealously defend their clients and even child molesters are entitled to that defense.

And when they choose to make arguments like "citizens should not be allowed to pleasure themselves," then they look like authoritarian morons.

 

[MrT]

But I believe you can if, in the the best interests of you client, you find you cannot adequately defend him.

I don't have an issue with her defending a child molester. Lawyers have a legal and ethical responsibility to zealously defend their clients and even child molesters are entitled to that defense.

That's true, but you rarely reach that conclusion because you can still make it difficult for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Gaius46]

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

The 10th isn't carte blanche for the states to do anything they like.

 

[sangha]

So I guess the question is who gets to decide if the state has sufficient interest or not.

Yes, that *is* the question

And the answer is "the courts"

 

[Mr Person]

Ted Cruz defended a ban on himself?

 

[cpwill]

The 10th isn't carte blanche for the states to do anything they like.

Certainly not. But they have police powers, meaning that things like this are within their purview.

 

[shagg]

Oh yeah, the constitution applies to everything except the social conservative agenda.

Now this all makes sense.

 

[Deuce]

Certainly not. But they have police powers, meaning that things like this are within their purview.

The 9th amendment never means a thing to you people does it

 

[cpwill]

The 9th amendment never means a thing to you people does it

The States have Police Powers. :shrug: They can ban heroin, marijuana, and, if they want to, I suppose, Dildos

 

[Gaius46]

Certainly not. But they have police powers, meaning that things like this are within their purview.

Yes. Generally though there would have to be compelling government interest to restrict the sale of a consumer product. I'd love to hear that argument.

 

[Deuce]

The States have Police Powers. :shrug: They can ban heroin, marijuana, and, if they want to, I suppose, Dildos

And cars and dogs and bread because they have police powers.

And we can ban the sale and manufacture of guns because the 2nd amendment doesn't say **** about actually making guns.

 

[blackjack50]

Uhhh yea... Outlawing objects because you dont like people pleasuring themselves.... Its ****ing outlandish.. He argued "people dont have the right to stimulate ones gentiles"... Thats ****ing outlandish...

This seems more like an attempt to assassinate the character of somebody that has more religious and conservative convictions than you. I'm not saying that I agree with him. But he has a right to feel that way. Who are you to say that that is outlandish? That seems a little bit intolerant to me.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

This seems more like an attempt to assassinate the character of somebody that has more religious and conservative convictions than you. I'm not saying that I agree with him. But he has a right to feel that way. Who are you to say that that is outlandish? That seems a little bit intolerant to me.

You dont think people have have the right to stimulate ones genitals?

 

[Deuce]

This seems more like an attempt to assassinate the character of somebody that has more religious and conservative convictions than you. I'm not saying that I agree with him. But he has a right to feel that way. Who are you to say that that is outlandish? That seems a little bit intolerant to me.

It's not intolerant to criticize someone who works against my freedom.