The 5th Circuit has ruled that Texas restrictions on promoting or selling sexual devices violate the 14th Amendment:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-51067-CV0.wpd.pdf

All those highway triple-X stores must be rejoicing. But given the conflict between circuits on this issue,and the dissenting opinion here, maybe this case is headed for the SCOTUS.

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 02-13-08 at .]

Ah, substantive due process. Anyone remember that phrase from law school?

I just can't imagine having this law review article on your resume:

Danielle J. Lindemann, Pathology Full Circle: A History of Anti-Vibrator Legislation in the United States, 15 COLUM. J.GENDER&L. 326, 327�30, 336�41 (2006).

I'm guessing thats quite a topic of conversation during interviews.

Does that particular law review article get mailed in a brown paper bag?

I do remember substantive due process! Doesn't that loosely translate as "Watch, we're about to pull something out of our butts?" Or perhaps to put it more politely, "We don't like this law so we're putting on our legislature hats."

[Tim] ["Watch, we're about to pull something out of our butts?"]

Maybe this quote should not be in this particular thread...

Now THAT was funny.

[Tim] ["Watch, we're about to pull something out of our butts?"]

[Aggregate] ["Maybe this quote should not be in this particular thread..."]

This thread should be limited to discussions concerning members and their issues.

I'm sure that portion of the trial evidence didn't make it into the appellate record.