Ted Cruz Once Argued to the Court of Appeals That There Is No “Substantive-Due-Process Right” to Buy Sex Toys

tedcruzbutthead

Ted Cruz is just creepy. A neurologist even argued that Cruz’s facial expressions are physically unsettling for a primal, biological reason.

And then there’s this.

The case began back in 2003 when a Texas mom was arrested for hosting a “passion party” — it’s like a Tupperware party for sex toys that women usually throw for bachelorette parties etc. She was arrested by not one, but two undercover cops because the state of Texas was among three other states which had a law outlawing the sale of  “obscene devices”. The law included punishment of up to two years in jail. In 2004, sex toy stores in Austin were fighting the privacy-murdering law under the 14th Amendment including the fact that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

Cruz was Texas solicitor general from 2003 to 2008, and he and his team fought really hard on this one, filing a 76-page legal brief making some of the most ridiculous arguments for state and police power against a person’s right to buy, own, and use a dildo in their own home that anyone has ever seen in the history of America.

Via Mother Jones:

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 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 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.

“Police power interests” in an adult’s bedroom? Great.

Citing Lawrence, the court of appeals determined people have the “right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding ‘the most private human contact, sexual behavior’,” essentially telling Cruz and his team that the Texas government should GTFO people’s bedrooms.

You would think that would be the end of it because, really, why is this even taking up a court of law’s time in modern America? But no.

Cruz threatened to take what he apparently felt was a very important issue to fight for the right of the government to police people’s intimate moments with themselves all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.”

So owning a sex toy is somehow legally on par with incest and bigamy according to Ted?

Seriously… what in the hell is wrong with Ted Cruz?

And this is who anyone wants to vote for as president? He’s a lawyer who made one of the most anti-liberty, pro-Big Government arguments any court of law ever heard.

At least the motion was denied and the case finally dropped because, well, it’s a comical level of stupid.


This post was originally published on this site
Comments are closed.

Copyright 2010-2013 Patriot Powered News