February 13, 2008, 09:43
JASTx sexual device prohibition violates 14th
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.pdfAll 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 .]
February 13, 2008, 11:24
JBAh, substantive due process. Anyone remember that phrase from law school?
February 13, 2008, 12:51
Robert S. DuBoiseI 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.
February 13, 2008, 13:01
David NewellDoes that particular law review article get mailed in a brown paper bag?
February 14, 2008, 10:29
T FI 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."
February 14, 2008, 10:38
Aggregation[Tim] ["Watch, we're about to pull something out of our butts?"]
Maybe this quote should not be in this particular thread...
February 14, 2008, 12:26
J Grace[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.
February 14, 2008, 12:55
T FI'm sure that portion of the trial evidence didn't make it into the appellate record.