Comments on: Texas - Still Obsessed With Dildos

By: Dildos

Dildos — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:20:21 +0000

I think to even attempt to ban sex toys is completely crazy. Whats next?

By: Sex Toys Lover

Sex Toys Lover — Sun, 04 May 2008 20:20:48 +0000

How can any government have the right to ban sex toys or tell you what you can do in the privacy of your bedroom.

By: Wisconsin Law School Dickeys around with the First Amendment « The Legal Satyricon

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:25:05 +0000

[...] banned due to someone crying “I’m offended!” I might have expected this out of Texas, but Wisconsin? The Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice had planned an event called [...]

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:16:12 +0000

Very nice comment! Respect!

By: The Great Texas Sex Toy Wars: The Empire Fights Back | The SmackDog Chronicles (v. 2.3)

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:39:04 +0000

[...] unregulated. Quoting directly from the brief, placed as a footnote on page 14 (and much thanks to The Legal Satyricon for offering a copy of the brief): 4. It is undoubtebly true that some people believe that [...]

By: Dildos and Firearms « Thoughts of a Random Reader

Dildos and Firearms « Thoughts of a Random Reader — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:08:01 +0000

[...] For the fascinating story click HERE. [...]

By: joshua samuel brown

joshua samuel brown — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:29:30 +0000

As a newly minted Texan by marriage, I was damned proud to see your name connected at Slate.com to an article about my new home state and dildos. Rock on Mr. R!

JSB

By: Vaelin

Vaelin — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:34:04 +0000

The reason why it’s a “waste of taxpayer’s money” is that it won’t change a damn thing one way or the other. Sex shops exist in Texas, I can name quite a few that have expanded since I last lived in Houston 6 years ago. All it will change is what they call the sex toys.

The people have spoken, and the legislature needs to get in touch with their constituency.

The problem is, no right minded politician will go out of his or her way to stand up in support of dildoes. At the local level like that, it gives your opponents too much firepower. I’m certain a Presidential Candidate could get away with it as the press coverage would be pretty thorough. But at the local level, all you’d see would be one or two signs claiming John Doe Kennedy is trying to put sex toys in the hand’s of your children…

By: marcorandazza

marcorandazza — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:23:26 +0000

Has the Fifth created a split in the circuits? Or did the 11th simply ignored Lawrence v. Texas, and the Fifth chose not to ignore that decision?

The Constitution does permit state governments to be monumentally stupid — but it does not permit state governments to encroach upon the citizens’ private sexual lives on the pretext of protecting “health, safety, and welfare,” when the true reason is nothing more than superstition. It wasn’t permitted in Griswold v. Connecticut, it wasn’t permitted in Lawrence v. Texas, and it shouldn’t be permitted here.

To call a decision based upon clear Supreme Court precedent “substitu[tion of] their own judgments willy-nilly for those of state legislators” reveals more about you than it does about the Fifth, or me.

This is precisely what the federal courts are for. When legislatures bow to the hysterics of one small cult, it is the court’s job to step in as a body unbowed by political pressure (we should hope) to correct the error.

But you knew that, after all, you were on law review. (Meaning you spent your time checking real authors’ punctuation while the real authors were creating new works.

With respect to my “over-arguing” my point — step one, remove your head from your ass, you slack-jawed hillbilly moron. Hyperbolic? Smug? Have ya read the other posts on this blog? This isn’t a petition for certiorari. This is where I share opinions and observations on legal issues — I have no desire, nor need, to coddle the sensitivities of someone like you.

Now run along and find yourself a traffic ticket to defend. The Constitutional lawyers are busy.

-MJR

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:19:14 +0000

Only a very bad advocate over-argues his position to the degree that this post does. When the panel majority creates a split in the circuits (as this one does), and when there has been an intelligent and comprehensive dissent (as there was here), it’s incredibly hyperbolic, and way too smug, to say that asking for rehearing en banc is a “waste of taxpayer’s money.”

I agree that the policy is monumentally stupid. But I am among those who believes that the Constitution permits state governments to be monumentally stupid, and doesn’t imbue federal judges with the power to substitute their own judgments willy-nilly for those of state legislators who’ve been monumentally stupid.