Cruz campaign positively cited Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion defending constitutionality of sodomy bans today: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/28d236513f534d5385a3d51360e5cbf5/ted-cruz-defended-texas-ban-sale-sex-toys-state …
-
-
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.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard... Duty-bound to defend a dildo ban? -
@Sufisdance@chrisgeidner Messed up Republican priorities, take 101...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.