Cruz campaign today to AP, in discussing Cruz's defense, as SG, of a Texas ban on "obscene devices," i.e., dildos:pic.twitter.com/eH9i7Y0uMf
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Cruz campaign today to AP, in discussing Cruz's defense, as SG, of a Texas ban on "obscene devices," i.e., dildos:pic.twitter.com/eH9i7Y0uMf
That other context was Lawrence v. Texas, in which Thomas dissented from the opinion striking down sodomy bans:pic.twitter.com/MTgIGLjisu
I've asked the @tedcruz campaign whether they think the dildo ban is constitutional — as opposed to whether it's wise policy.
The Cruz campaign's response suggests they're trying to hide from that distinction — and wanted their friends to know that.
By citing to Thomas' dissent they're not distancing themselves from the brief, as AP claims; the brief wasn't arguing it's good policy.
Q isn't if Cruz would ban dildos — fwiw, he said he wouldn't: https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ted-cruz-says-he-wont-ban-dildos-if-he-becomes-president#.qdK0eMlYLp … — it's whether he thinks a ban is unconstitutional.
That, from a SCOTUS lawyer who wants to run a Justice Dep't & appoint judges, is the key question raised by the "obscene device ban" brief.
Also, re: Cruz today: A federal ban on dildos is different than a state ban, obviously.* * = I really can't believe I wrote that sentence.
And, I would note: I wrote nothing about this based on the brief itself because I am uncomfortable imputing his SG briefs to him personally.
Insofar as work Cruz did as SG is echoed by his stated positions as a lawmaker or would-be executive, though, they are relevant.
Specifically, I think it is worth asking whether he personally believes certain args advanced as SG when they match w his positions now.
But, today, the reason I decided to pipe up — and raise questions to the campaign — is that their answers seem disingenuous.
Cruz states a policy preference against dildo bans, as his campaign highlights Thomas saying a policy pref =/= a constitutional decision.
Seems, at that point, clearly worth asking whether he personally agrees w his brief, which wasn't about policy/was about constitutionality.
I know this seems like a side issue of a side issue of a side issue. But it is rly about Cruz' view of substantive due process protections.
@chrisgeidner I don't like Cruz, but Texas was his client. And fn: He spent less time defending that law than DOJ spent defending DOMA.
@KDbyProxy Thanks. Well aware of all of that since I've been writing about that things for more than a decade.
@chrisgeidner Well, I find it amusing it suddenly seems fine to see a lawyer as tainted by his clients, require him to disavow them.
@KDbyProxy I am not doing so, as I detail in the thread.
@chrisgeidner I read thru the thread b4 & now again & it comes across as u r doing that. It's the predicate of the MJ piece & of ur thread.
@chrisgeidner IOW, bootstrapping.
@KDbyProxy No, it's the reverse for me. I only did anything about this once the campaign cited to Thomas' Lawrence dissent.
@chrisgeidner All that said, I get that ure doing ur job, & using his mention of Lawrence as a hook to engage his campaign, kudos for that.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.