U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos
Source:
Mother Jones
URL Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics ... uz-dildo-ban-sex-devices-texas
Published: Apr 13, 2016
Author: David Corn
Post Date: 2016-04-13 09:17:02 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 13105
Comments: 53
In one chapter of his campaign book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general, a post he held from 2003 to 2008. Bolstering his conservative cred, the Republican presidential candidate notes that during his stint as the state's chief lawyer before the Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts, he defended the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol, a congressional redistricting plan that assisted Republicans, a restrictive voter identification law, and a ban on late-term abortions. He also described cases in which he championed gun rights and defended the conviction of a Mexican citizen who raped and murdered two teenage girls in a case challenged by the World Court. Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos. The case was actually an important battle concerning privacy and free speech rights. In 2004, companies that owned Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices. Under the law, a person who violated the statute could go to jail for up to two years. At the time, only three states—Mississippi, Alabama, and Virginia—had similar laws. (The previous year, a Texas mother who was a sales rep for Passion Parties was arrested by two undercover cops for selling vibrators and other sex-related goods at a gathering akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys. No doubt, this had worried businesses peddling such wares.) The plaintiffs in the sex-device case contended the state law violated the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. They argued that many people in Texas used sexual devices as an aspect of their sexual experiences. They claimed that in some instances one partner in a couple might be physically unable to engage in intercourse or have a contagious disease (such as HIV) and that in these cases such devices could allow a couple to engage in safe sex. But a federal judge sent them packing, ruling that selling sex toys was not protected by the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and Cruz's solicitor general office had the task of preserving the law. In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), filed a 76-page brief calling on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to uphold the lower court's decision and permit the law to stand. The filing noted, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does not "forbid the private use of such devices." The plaintiffs had argued that this case was similar to Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas' law against sodomy. But Cruz's office countered that Lawrence "focused on interpersonal relationships and the privacy of the home" and that the law being challenged did not block the "private use of obscene devices." Cruz's legal team asserted that "obscene devices do not implicate any liberty interest." And its brief added that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." In other words, Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them. 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 with "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 plaintiffs, it noted, were "free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices" but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items. In a 2-1 decision issued in February 2008, the court of appeals told Cruz's office to take a hike. The court, citing Lawrence, pointed to the "right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding 'the most private human contact, sexual behavior.'" The panel added, "An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right." It rejected the argument from Cruz's team that the government had a legitimate role to play in "discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation." No, government officials could not claim as part of their job duties the obligation to reduce masturbation or non-procreative sexual activity. And the two judges in the majority slapped aside the solicitor general's attempt to link dildos to prostitution: "The sale of a device that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in the home is not the 'sale of sex' (prostitution)." Summing up, the judges declared, "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence...Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution." The appeals court had rejected the arguments from Cruz's office and said no to Big Government policing the morals of citizens. But Abbott and Cruz wouldn't give up. Of course, they might have initially felt obligated to mount a defense of this state law. But after it had been shot down, they pressed ahead, relying on the same puritanical and excessive arguments to justify government intrusion. Abbott and Cruz quickly filed a brief asking the full court of appeals to hear the case, claiming the three-judge panel had extended the scope of Lawrence too far. This brief suggested that if the decision stood, some people would argue that "engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy" ought to be legal because it could "enhance their sexual experiences." And Cruz's office filed another brief noting it was considering taking this case to the Supreme Court. Cruz and Abbott lost the motion for a hearing from the full court of appeals. And the state soon dropped the case, opting not to appeal to the Supreme Court. This meant that the government could no longer outlaw the sale of dildos, vibrators, and other sex-related devices in the Lone Star State—and in Mississippi and Louisiana, the two other states within this appeals court's jurisdiction. The day after the appeals court wiped out the Texas law, Cruz forwarded an email to the lawyer in his office who had overseen the briefs in the case. It included a blog post from legal expert Eugene Volokh headlined, "Dildoes Going to the Supreme Court?" and a sympathetic note from William Thro, then the solicitor general of Virginia. "Having had the experience of answering questions about oral sex from a female State Supreme Court Justice who is also a grandmother," Thro wrote Cruz, "you have my sympathy. :-) Seriously, if you do go for cert [with the Supreme Court] and if we can help, let me know." But for whatever reason—Cruz certainly doesn't explain in his book—Abbott and he did not take the dildo ban to the Supreme Court. And Cruz, who was already thinking about running for elected office, missed out on the chance to gain national attention as an advocate for the just-say-no-to-vibrators cause. Imagine how his political career might have been affected had Cruz become the public face for the anti-dildos movement. His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-9) not displayed.
.
.
.
#10. To: tooconservative (#6)
Solicitors General ALWAYS do so under their own discretion, and choose the strategy, tactics and fights they think are the way to do it. Cruz chose to fight this, and he chose the tactics he used. He lost. Characteristically, he chooses evil and oppressive little causes and fights like hell for them. Which is why the people reject him, and reject your party, because that's the sort of small-minded, incompetent losers you are. Looks like you're going to be taught that lesson again this election cycle.
Small t, small hands.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That shower I took was cold. Very cold.
It's about states' rights not dildos. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Dildo Request for Rehearing at 14: Yes, you see, Texas was attempting the criminalize activity they deemed harmful to the public. They were fearful that someone might use a dildo and harm themself. Perhaps they could also pass a law to criminalize masturbation to prevent blindness. All in the interest of State's Rights of course. Because the State's proper place is to protect the people from the harmful effects of dildos.
Natural law says they should stick to defending individual rights - but the Constitution doesn't generally demand that they do so. Neither the 14th Amendment nor even a fully-incorporated Bill of Rights declare a "right" to sell dildos. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/101202 Decision means adult toys now legal in Texas, Mississippi and Lousiana XBIZ News Report By Slav Kandyba AUSTIN, Texas — Thanks to the Texas attorney general’s decision to drop the appeal in the Reliable Consultants Inc. case, adult toy sellers are no longer peddling illegal products in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel let that fact be known in a two-page document dated Oct. 29, in which he wrote that Texas attorney general’s office has notified him by telephone that his office would not file a writ of certiorari — an appeal — in Reliable Consultants Inc. vs. Texas. The three states comprise the jurisdiction of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, where Texas would have filed the appeal if it decided to do so. The case stemmed from Texas attorney general and his Travis County counterpart prosecution of Reliable Consultants Inc., operator of Dreamer’s and Le Rouge Boutique adult boutiques. They sought enforcement of state laws that prohibit commercial sale of sexual devices. The also named Jennifer Rasmussen, a Travis County resident and college student who hosted private parties for women at which she sold vibrators and other adult toys. Attorney H. Louis Sirkin, who signed on to represent both Reliable Consultants and Rasmussen, sought for the court to declare the Texas laws unconstitutional — and won. The fact that Texas decided against appealing is validation of the “academic” strategy he chose to use, Sirkin told XBIZ. “We attacked on the right of privacy and right to make choices with [the public’s] sexual stimulation,” Sirkin said. “It’s an academic decision based on academic facts. Our case was really an intellectual presentation.” The strategy relied on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which decided that Texas’ law against sodomy was unconstitutional on the grounds that government can not intervene in people’s sex lives at their own homes. Ultimately, the decision marks somewhat of a watershed moment for adult toy stores in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana, the states that fall within the court’s jurisdiction. “The significance of it is that now in those three states people are free to sell those toys,” Sirkin said.
Natural law is bullshit and has never been the law of anyplace. Natural law is theoretically some law applicable to man in a state of nature. It is an empty vessel into which anyone can pour their individual beliefs and make believe they are citing actual law.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor even a fully-incorporated Bill of Rights declare a "right" to sodomy, either. Not to mention that opening a store is nothing like enjoying the privacy of one's home. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Ted Cruz knows that his wife would leave him, if she could only score a dildo.
Natural law says they should stick to defending individual rights Natural law is bullshit OK, then, there is no valid basis for overturning a law banning dildo sales. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Perhaps the writer doesn't understand what the job of solicitor-general actually is. The attorney is not exactly divorced from the legal claims he makes to a court. F.R.C.P. 11 (excerpt) By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; A representation was made to the court that there was a good faith belief that the Texas law was constitutional. That law was held to be unconstitutional, and struck down as repugnant to the Constitution. A rehearing was denied and the decision was not appealed.
Or as the Court stated: TX Dildo Decision at 10-12, (citations omitted) These interests in “public morality” cannot constitutionally sustain the statute after Lawrence. To uphold the statute would be to ignore the holding in Lawrence and allow the government to burden consensual private intimate conduct simply by deeming it morally offensive. In Lawrence, Texas’s only argument was that the anti-sodomy law reflected the moral judgment of the legislature. The Court expressly rejected the State’s rationale by adopting Justice Stevens’ view in Bowers as “controlling” and quoting Justice Stevens’ statement that “‘the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.’” Thus, if in Lawrence public morality was an insufficient justification for a law that restricted “adult consensual intimacy in the home,” then public morality also cannot serve as a rational basis for Texas’s statute, which also regulates private sexual intimacy. Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” It is undeniable that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression. However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right. Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification. The alleged governmental interest in protecting “unwilling adults” from exposure to sexual devices is even less convincing. The Court has consistently refused to burden individual rights out of concern for the protection of “unwilling recipients.” Furthermore, this asserted interest bears no rational relation to the restriction on sales of sexual devices because an adult cannot buy a sexual device without making the affirmative decision to visit a store and make the purchase. The State argues that if this statute, which proscribes the distribution of sexual devices, is struck down, it is equivalent to extending substantive due process protection to the “commercial sale of sex.” Not so. The sale of a device that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in the home is not the “sale of sex” (prostitution). Following the State’s logic, the sale of contraceptives would be equivalent to the sale of sex because contraceptives are intended to be used for the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation. This argument cannot be accepted as a justification to limit the sale of contraceptives. The comparison highlights why the focus of our analysis is on the burden the statute puts on the individual’s right to make private decisions about consensual intimate conduct. Furthermore, there are justifications for criminalizing prostitution other than public morality, including promoting public safety and preventing injury and coercion. Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence.
There is no valid reason for a court of law in the U.S. to ban anything on the basis of someone's dingbat citation of his personal natural law in preference to actual United States law.
Try that in court. TX Dildo Decision at 10-12, (citations omitted) These interests in “public morality” cannot constitutionally sustain the statute after Lawrence. To uphold the statute would be to ignore the holding in Lawrence and allow the government to burden consensual private intimate conduct simply by deeming it morally offensive. In Lawrence, Texas’s only argument was that the anti-sodomy law reflected the moral judgment of the legislature. The Court expressly rejected the State’s rationale by adopting Justice Stevens’ view in Bowers as “controlling” and quoting Justice Stevens’ statement that “‘the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.’” Thus, if in Lawrence public morality was an insufficient justification for a law that restricted “adult consensual intimacy in the home,” then public morality also cannot serve as a rational basis for Texas’s statute, which also regulates private sexual intimacy. Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” It is undeniable that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression. However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right. Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification. The alleged governmental interest in protecting “unwilling adults” from exposure to sexual devices is even less convincing. The Court has consistently refused to burden individual rights out of concern for the protection of “unwilling recipients.” Furthermore, this asserted interest bears no rational relation to the restriction on sales of sexual devices because an adult cannot buy a sexual device without making the affirmative decision to visit a store and make the purchase. The State argues that if this statute, which proscribes the distribution of sexual devices, is struck down, it is equivalent to extending substantive due process protection to the “commercial sale of sex.” Not so. The sale of a device that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in the home is not the “sale of sex” (prostitution). Following the State’s logic, the sale of contraceptives would be equivalent to the sale of sex because contraceptives are intended to be used for the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation. This argument cannot be accepted as a justification to limit the sale of contraceptives. The comparison highlights why the focus of our analysis is on the burden the statute puts on the individual’s right to make private decisions about consensual intimate conduct. Furthermore, there are justifications for criminalizing prostitution other than public morality, including promoting public safety and preventing injury and coercion. Just as in Lawrence, the State here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence.
Simply false. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Courts get it wrong - like this one did here. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I cited natural law AGAINST the dildo-sale ban, dingbat. When reading a post try using your brain instead of just jerking your knees. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The rule of law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Constitutional governance is what the Supreme Court says it is. Thus has it been all the way back to the Founding Fathers, per Marbury v. Madison, c.1802. Scalia is dead. In 1969 the Republicans took over the majority of the Supreme Court and ever since then, since Nixon was President, we have had a Republican, and therefore financially (if not always socially) conservative Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution as conservative federalists could be expected to. No voice on or off the Court was more eloquent in defense of a certain conservative, originalist, federalist read of the Constitution than Justice Antonin Scalia. But Scalia is dead, and now the Supreme Court is divided 4-4, four liberal Democrats, four Republicans, only two of which are reliably conservative on all matters. Below the Supremes, the federal Circuit Courts, the courts of appeals, are now dominated by Democrats. 9 of 13 have Democrat majorities. When the Supreme Court is divided and cannot decide, the opinions of the Circuit Courts stand as the governing ruling. With Scalia gone, there remain three justices on the court that are over 80. Two are Democrats - the next President will probably get to replace them. One - Kennedy - is an unreliable Republican. The next President will probably replace him. If the next President is a Democrat, s/he will replenish the two aging Democrats, and fill both Scalia's and Kennedy's seat, leaving a 6-3 Democrat dominance on the Supreme Court. By the end of a Democrat's terms, the Circuit Courts will probably entirely be in Democrat hands, and the trial courts will be heavily skewed Democrat. Democratic judicial philosophy will become the Constitutional law. Their rules will BE the rule of law. You're not going to stop any of this from happening by grousing about Democrats. The only way you can STOP it is by electing a Republican. And the only Republican you can elect is Trump. You will vehemently deny this. And then the Democrats will take over, and their interpretation of the Constitution will be the law of the land.
Ah yes, "State's Rights". States Rights would have credibility as an argument if it weren't for the fact that the only time anybody fights for them is when the state "right" in question is the "right" to keep slaves, or the "right" to segregate, or the "right" to oppress people for private sexual behavior. It seems that in practice the "right" of the states that folks on the Right seem to always get all jumped up about are the supposed "right" of locals to be oppressive jackasses. The argument never wins, because it's been used to support so much evil. Cruz is an martiet dickhead, so OF COURSE he made a states rights argument to defend some ridiculous and oppressive state law. Of course the argument was smashed down once again, because the Cause, once again, was stupid and getting in people's private lives, as always. Same old tireless jerks making the same old tired arguments, and going down to the same old defeat. "Old times there are not forgotten", and people like Cruz never learn a damned thing.
not to quibble ... but states don't have rights .. people have rights . states have power. You can look it up .The founders were deliberate in their use of the 2 words . The Federal Government's powers are few and defined . The rest of the powers belong to the states (10th Amendment ) .The rest of the rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights belong to the people (9th amendment ) .
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Wrong - Cruz says marijuana policy belongs to the states. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Not to quibble, but the Federal governments powers are whatever the Rule of Five - 5 justices of the Supreme Court - say they are. How much power is delegated to the Federal government by the Commerce Clause and the "Necessary and Proper" clause is always the issue. Since 1969, Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court, and they read those powers as limited. But Justice Scalia is dead and the court is deadlocked. The next President will name at least one, and probably four Supremes. If those justices are named by a Democrat, then the Commerce Clause will mean that the federal government has plenary power to regulate all economic activity - including whether a farmer can legally grow corn on his land for his own personal use. "Necessary and proper" means. to a Democrat Court, whatever isn't covered by the Commerce Clause. So, a Republican Court looks at a list of enumerated powers and says "not much there, certainly not xxx", but a Democrat Court looks at two powers: to regulate interstate commerce, and to enact whatever is necessary and proper to see to the upholding of the intent of the Constitution, and find in those two powers the power to build New Sweden. During the long Republican ascendancy over the Court, Republicans could sit pat that their basic concept of at least somewhat limited government was upheld as THE Constitution, while Democrats could grouse that the Constitution was being blinkered and hobbled to serve conservative fetishes. But under the Democratic regime that will follow Obama if the Republicans steal the election from Trump, Republicans will scream bloody murder that the Constitution is being trashed left and right. Elections matter. They determine thing. This time, for the first time in a half-century, the election may mean a shift in control of the Supreme Court, and that will very rapidly result in a run of changes. Your view of what the Constitution "is" will continue to hold sway if Trump is elected. Otherwise, the Democrat view will.
No wonder he swept Colorado.
that is presumptuous. I see nothing that indicates that Trump holds an electoral advantage over Evita. This appears to be the last resort of the Trump supporters . If Trump isn't nominated then we get the Democrat President .There is zero basis for this claim so it is just another strawman in the debate. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
How many states with primaries - you know, where the people go and actually VOTE, like they will in the General Election - has Cruz won? His home state. Wisconsin. Any others? Cruz has won a bunch of caucuses, and stolen delegates crookedly, and he's still way behind Trump. So, what do you get if Republican corruption denies Trump the nomination. You get Ted Cruz, a despicable, nasty little man whom the American people will never elect President. He can't win Republican PRIMARIES - and the General Election is just like that, a place where the VOTERS cast VOTES and decide, not a smoky backroom where Republican party asshats make deals with each other. You're hellbent on putting Cruz up there. You may succeed. And then you're going to lose the country in a crushing defeat. You're going to lose the Congress. You're going to lose the Supreme Court. And lots of Trump voters like me, who will have been screwed out of our victory by corrupt Republicans are going to join the tidal waves and make damned sure that the Democrats burn you to the ground. Then what? Well, if you're the sort of WORKING CLASS person SCREWED BY FREE TRADE, you're going to get Democrats who will, at least, increase the minimum wage, and fund health insurance, and reduce the student loan burden, and protect Social Security. They won't give you what Donald would on free trade, but at least they'll make your unemployment more endurable by giving more generous benefits. They'll pay for it by increasing taxes on the rich Republican donors who screwed Trump out of the nomination. And they'll come and get your guns. Presumptuous? I guarantee that if you push Cruz to the top of the Republican ticket, the Republican Party will never hold the Supreme Court, or the White House, or either house of Congress again for the rest of your life. AND you will significantly lose your guns rights. AND if you are rich, your taxes will go WAY up. You can take that to the bank. You're willfully blind if you "see nothing that indicates Trump..." whatever. So play your games - I want Donald, but in the end it may be that the Republican Party is too diseased and corrupt for him to be able to hold onto the nomination that actual VOTERS will have given him. The rotten husk of the GOP will be naked for all to see. And then we - the Trump voters you screwed and the Democrats who already hate you - are going to close in and kill what is left of your party. We'll end up with an American style form of socialism, and most of us will be ok. But you Republicans will lose everything. You are hellbent on testing that proposition. Great! Because at the end of it, no matter what the outcome, I will be fine. But at the end of it you will be crushed down, never to rise again, for the rest of your life. Utterly defeated. Everything you believe in will be systematically destroyed, the institutions that you have used to exert control, burnt to the ground by prosecution and regulation. And I'll be enjoying watching it. You have decided to stand against the people. That's what you Republicans are doing. We're going to enslave you.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html TRUMP v CRUZ -- Primary/Caucus Results (States and DC)
Trump has 4 finishes in 3rd, no finish below 3rd.
Cruz has 7 finishes in 3rd, 3 finishes in 4th.
Trump has 8 finishes under 30%.
Cruz has 16 finishes under 30%.
- - - - - - - - - -
IA 1. CRUZ (27.6) 2. Trump (24.3) CAUCUS
NH 1. TRUMP (35.3) 3. Cruz (11.7)
SC 1. TRUMP (32.5) 3. Cruz (22.3)
NV 1. TRUMP (45.9) 3. Cruz (24.9) CAUCUS
AL 1. TRUMP (43.4) 2. Cruz (21.1)
AK 1. CRUZ (36.4) 2. Trump (33.5) CAUCUS
AR 1. TRUMP (32.8) 2. Cruz (30.5)
GA 1. TRUMP (38.8) 3. Cruz (23.6)
MA 1. TRUMP (49.3) 4. Cruz (9.6)
MN 2. CRUZ (29.0) 3. Trump (21.3) CAUCUS
OK 1. CRUZ (34.4) 2. Trump (28.3)
TN 1. TRUMP (38.9) 2. Cruz (24.7)
TX 1. CRUZ (43.8) 2. Cruz (26.7)
VT 1. TRUMP (32.7) 4. Cruz (9.7)
VA 1. TRUMP (34.7) 3. Cruz (16.9)
KS 1. CRUZ (48.2) 2. Trump (23.3)
KY 1. TRUMP (35.9) 2. Cruz (31.6) CAUCUS
LA 1. TRUMP (41.4) 2. Cruz (37.8)
ME 1. CRUZ (45.9) 2. Trump (32.6) CAUCUS
HI 1. TRUMP (43.4) 2. Cruz (32.3) CAUCUS
ID 1. CRUZ (45.4) 2. Trump (28.8)
MI 1. TRUMP (36.5) 2. Cruz (24.9)
MS 1. TRUMP (47.3) 2. Cruz (36.3)
WY 1. CRUZ (66.3) 3. Trump (7.2) CAUCUS
FL 1. TRUMP (45.7) 3. Cruz (17.1)
IL 1. TRUMP (38.8) 2. Cruz (30.3)
MO 1. TRUMP (40.9) 2. Cruz (40.7)
NC 1. TRUMP (40.2) 2. Cruz (36.8)
OH 2. TRUMP (35.6) 3. Cruz (13.1)
AZ 1. TRUMP (47.1) 2. Cruz (24.9)
UT 1. CRUZ (69.2) 3. Trump (14.0)
WI 1. CRUZ (48.2) 2. Trump (35.1)
- - - - - - - - - -
DC 3. TRUMP (13.8) 4. Cruz (12.4) CAUCUS
You keep up this fiction that Trump would beat Evita. Right now @ RCP ,in a head to head matchup Trump loses by a 10.4% spread . Cruz loses to her by 2.8 % What we will get with Trump at the top of a ticket will be a landslide defeat that will also sweep Congress of Republican majorities.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
What you will get by robbing Trump of the nomination is a landslide defeat that will also sweep Congress of Republican majorities and had the Supreme Court to liberal Democrats for the rest of your life. And then come the deluge. For you.
Trump has won 19 primaries, where people vote. Cruz has won 6. Caucuses are completely unlike the general election, and are subject to all sorts of manipulation and corruption. As would be expected, Cruz has succeeded there, in the dark. When people vote, Trump wins. When politicians wheel and deal, Cruz wins.
love the logic . playing by the rules and losing becomes stealing .
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
This whole exercise should be telling you that your candidate is ill prepared to run a national campaign. He has been shutting down his operations in states after the primaries, delegate selection process is complete ...in Colorado he obviously was a no show . Cruz' campaign is national . He has not shut anything down. His organization is in every state ready to campaign as soon as he is nominated. Even if he loses ,his organization will not be shut down. He will use it to help candidates he prefers on the under ticket. I wonder how many resources Trump has used to support other Repubican candidates this cycle ?(the answer is zero).
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Fort Sumter was a Confederate victory. So was Bull Run. They resulted in Sherman's March. Drive Trump and his supporters out of your party, they come back with Sherman. As you will find out.
Cruz is a corrupt weasel who will never be accepted by the American people. You may succeed in driving out Trump and his supporters. In response, you will have President Hillary Clinton, a Democrat Supreme Court, a Democrat Congress, amnesty, gun registration and the ban of semiautomatic weapons, a $15 minimum wage, redistributive taxation, motor voter, mandatory union dues, and single-payer health insurance. So be it.
Then come election day, the Rep Party will be like a restaurant that trys to sell sandwiches with dog shit on the buns. NO CUSTOMERS ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
All that happens, and this country will go up in flames. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Not hardly. Routed at the polls, the Republicans will settle back into their lives and grimly obey the new laws. grousing about them. Here and there pockets of gun nuts will cook off. They will be dispatched with a few new Wacos and Ruby Ridges, and nobody else will have any enthusiasm for armed rebellion after that. The country will not be in flames. It will simply realign and become more socialist and socially libertarian over time, nothing more. The Republican rump won't fight. But if they do, they'll simply be wiped out by the majority. And that, as they say, will be that.
OK, that sure sounds nice. Fills my head with happy thoughts while I mow my lawn.
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
I am reminded of a speech by Shakespeare's King Henry V to the French defenders of the besieged city of Harfleur - KING HENRY: "How yet resolves the governor of the town? This is the latest parle we will admit. Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves, or like to men proud of destruction, defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier, a name that in my thoughts becomes me best, if I begin the battery once again, I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur till in her ashes she lie buried. The gates of mercy shall be all shut up, and the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart, in liberty of bloody hand shall range with conscience wide as Hell, mowing like grass your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants. What is it then to me if impious war, array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends, do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats enlink'd to waste and desolation? What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause, if your pure maidens fall into the hand of hot and forcing violation? What rein can hold licentious wickedness, when down the hill he holds his fierce career? We may as bootless spend our vain command upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil as send precepts to the leviathan to come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur, take pity of your town and of your people, whiles yet my soldiers are in my command; whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace o'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds of heady murder, spoil and villany. If not, why, in a moment look to see the blind and bloody soldier with foul hand defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters; your fathers taken by the silver beards and their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls; your naked infants spitted upon pikes, whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry at Herod's bloody- hunting slaughtermen. What say you? Will you yield, and this avoid? Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?"
Well, I never did care for Shakespeare. But like I said before: that sure sounds nice. Fills my head with happy thoughts while I mow my lawn. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
But like I said before: that sure sounds nice. Fills my head with happy thoughts while I mow my lawn. Well, then, enjoy your thoughts and your lawn.
Comments (51 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnd, yes, it is the job of the solicitor-general to defend cases whether he agrees with the law or not. It is part of our system with two opposing compentent counsels representing the interests of the parties involved.
#11. To: tooconservative (#3)
#12. To: SOSO (#11)
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
Cruz was in NO sense OBLIGATED to take up this case and fight as hard as he did for it.
#14. To: ConservingFreedom, Vicomte13 (#13)
It's about states' rights not dildos.
In short, the panel majority's act of striking down this statute impermissibly overrides state lawmakers' settled "authority to regulate commercial activity they deem harmful to the public."
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
the State's proper place is to protect the people from the harmful effects of dildos.
#16. To: ConservingFreedom, Vicomte13 (#13)
Texas AG Drops Adult Toy Case Appeal
Nov 4, 2008 3:00 PM PST
#17. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
Natural law says they should stick to defending individual rights
#18. To: nolu chan (#16)
The strategy relied on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which decided that Texas’ law against sodomy was unconstitutional on the grounds that government can not intervene in people’s sex lives at their own homes.
#19. To: Willie Green (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#20. To: nolu chan (#17)
#21. To: tooconservative (#1)
IOW, he did his job to defend in court the legally enacted statutes of his state, regardless of how he felt about the issue.
(b) Representations to Court.
#22. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
It's about states' rights not dildos.
It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct.
The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.”
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#20)
OK, then, there is no valid basis for overturning a law banning dildo sales.
#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
Neither the 14th Amendment nor even a fully-incorporated Bill of Rights declare a "right" to sodomy, either. Not to mention that opening a store is nothing like enjoying the privacy of one's home.
The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.”
#25. To: nolu chan (#22)
Texas’s statute, which also regulates private sexual intimacy.
#26. To: nolu chan (#24)
Try that in court.
#27. To: nolu chan (#23)
someone's dingbat citation of his personal natural law in preference to actual United States law.
#28. To: tomder55 (#9)
Yes I understand that the Dems have an issue with things like the rule of law or constitutional governance.
#29. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
It's about states' rights not dildos.
#30. To: Vicomte13, ConservingFreedom (#29)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
States Rights would have credibility as an argument if it weren't for the fact that the only time anybody fights for them is when the state "right" in question is the "right" to keep slaves, or the "right" to segregate, or the "right" to oppress people for private sexual behavior.
#32. To: tomder55 (#30)
not to quibble ... but states don't have rights .. people have rights . states have power. You can look it up .The founders were deliberate in their use of the 2 words . The Federal Government's powers are few and defined . The rest of the powers belong to the states (10th Amendment ) .The rest of the rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights belong to the people (9th amendment ) .
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
Wrong - Cruz says marijuana policy belongs to the states.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
Your view of what the Constitution "is" will continue to hold sway if Trump is elected. Otherwise, the Democrat view will.
#35. To: tomder55 (#34)
that is presumptuous. I see nothing that indicates that Trump holds an electoral advantage over Evita. This appears to be the last resort of the Trump supporters . If Trump isn't nominated then we get the Democrat President .There is zero basis for this claim so it is just another strawman in the debate.
#36. To: Vicomte13, tomder55 (#35)
(Edited)
How many states with primaries - you know, where the people go and actually VOTE, like they will in the General Election - has Cruz won? His home state. Wisconsin. Any others?
Trump 22
Cruz 11
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
#38. To: tomder55 (#37)
What we will get with Trump at the top of a ticket will be a landslide defeat that will also sweep Congress of Republican majorities.
#39. To: nolu chan (#36)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
#41. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan, TooConservative (#39)
#42. To: tomder55 (#40)
love the logic . playing by the rules and losing becomes stealing .
#43. To: tomder55 (#41)
Cruz' campaign is national .
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
" Drive Trump and his supporters out of your party "
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
" You may succeed in driving out Trump and his supporters. In response, you will have President Hillary Clinton, a Democrat Supreme Court, a Democrat Congress, amnesty, gun registration and the ban of semiautomatic weapons, a $15 minimum wage, redistributive taxation, motor voter, mandatory union dues, and single-payer health insurance. "
#46. To: Stoner (#45)
All that happens, and this country will go up in flames.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
#48. To: Stoner (#47)
(Edited)
OK, that sure sounds nice. Fills my head with happy thoughts while I mow my lawn.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
#50. To: Stoner (#49)
Well, I never did care for Shakespeare.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]