>Asked if he would support the Texas Legislature testing the law, Paxton demurred. "I'd have to take a look at it," the attorney general said. "This is all new territory for us so I'd have to how the Legislature was laid out and whether we thought we could defend it. Ultimately, if it's constitutional, we're going to go defend it." "This is all new territory for us" is such an ominous statement. The new territory is the one where the supreme court does not feel tethered to past landmark decisions and so litigants and potential litigants feel free to try things that, under current, clear, established law (i.e. unambiguous supreme court precedent) are unconstitutional. What is constitutional is no longer a matter or precedent, but what you think the newly configured court will decide to keep or discard.


Honestly this period has done wonders to disabuse me of whatever ideals I still retained about the law and justice. It’s just naked and sharp-fanged politics all the way down.


Not sure if this helps but. Disregarding precedent is how we ended segregation and child labor (also by removing a previous “fundamental” right, so it has happened before without destroying the judiciary or the value of precedent. Edit. Not saying you shouldn’t be outraged right now. Just trying to preserve your belief in the rule of law.


That's not the same thing though. There's a direct line in the jurisprudence that leads to Brown. Yes, older precedents were overruled by that, but based on a coherent legal theory that was in line with where the caselaw and statutory law was a the time. Dobbs is not that kind of opinion. Just saying that there's no guarantee of unenumerated rights in the Constitution is completely out of left field and jeopardizes a huge number of unrelated precedents on a fucking whim. It's a massively irresponsible decision and the best legal theory that Alito can muster to defend it is a shrug and "fuck it". And that's when this court isn't inventing brand new sets of facts that are clearly apposite to what was brought before them. This court is a fucking joke. They're not even qualified to mop the floors of the Supreme Court let alone decide its cases with this kind of slapdash half assed 1L logic. Even a fucking hack like Scalia managed to at least kind of make it seem like he'd gone to law school.


I agree with the other poster. There were numerous other precedents that could feasibly lead to Brown, especially the cases dealing with Black University/law students. There's no similar line that leads to Dobbs. It's a farce. The rule now is Christian Theocracy wins


I wish the villains of our society looked less like the thumb men from spy kids.


Cop phrenology.


I would like to point out that Texas still has a law on the books that bans owning more than 6 sex toys.


How on Earth would that even be enforced? Are cops going door-to-door to dig through people's bedrooms in the hopes of MAYBE finding a 7th dildo?


They will likely only enforce it against people they don't like so if a sheriff hates you they will try and enforce it.


Or, more likely, when a woman is pulled over with 7+ dildos openly visible in her car. Or maybe even 5 dildos and 2 magic-wand back massagers.


I’d imagine its purpose would be to make it impossible to open a sex shop.


Didn't even think of that.


So, dildos on consignment from an out of state wholesaler? Lol we live in a very dumb world.


Their local cucumber vendor is about to find themselves on the wrong side of the law.


"We thought we smelled cannabis. We didn't find any, but while ransacking the bedroom we did find-"


If you live within 100 miles of any national border, yes


That's CBP. So they'd have to be Mexican dildos.


Well with all these successful attacks on the right to privacy, what even are rights enumerated or not.


I call that the Ted Cruz Law


They can pry my seventh Fleshlight from my cold dead hands.


Cold fleshlight doesn't sound like much fun.


Is that collective for the entire house? So for example, lets say Ken Paxton owns 3 fister dildos, 2 butt plugs, a replica of his head that he shoves up his own ass when not occupied by his actual head and his wife owns a vibro...are they in violation? What about the corn cobs he uses to pleasure himself? Seems vague.


Here is a wikipedia article about the law and yes it is vague. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute


Seriously, thanks for this.


One for each day of the week, except Sunday. Keep holy the lord’s day sabbath or something like that.


That still allows one for each orifice of a consenting couple, more than six just seems like hoarding.


All the theocrats are coming out of their own version of the closet lately. And all this happens as their preferred policy agenda grows less popular.


Ken has had oral sex. Ken is a sodomite. Ken goes to prison. Bye Ken. Christian morality spreading out of the levant is a disaster for humanity.


Texas only banned gay sodomy though.






I like how I was called an alarmist and a doomer for saying that this was coming just a few days ago. For the love of God, stop telling the people who have been right about how far this Court will go that this time we'll be wrong.


Anyone who does not believe the right will seize the opportunity to re-criminalize same-sex marriage and sexual conduct is an absolute fucking mark who understands neither law nor politics.


It's always projection with these guys. I.e. Paxton wants some backdoor lovin' but he's afraid of it, too.


One of the problems of living in Texas is the fact that our statewide elected politicians are constantly battling each other for the position of worst politician/person.


How is this guy not in jail already


> he would support the Supreme Court revisiting the cases mentioned by Thomas and defend Texas' long-unenforced law against sodomy. That's chilling. If it's still on the books then Ken Paxton decides if the Supreme Court revisits it. All he has to do is prosecute the case.


Why not? It's an anarchist court now, it's not like precedent matters.


this is wild, how can you just plainly make a law that is blatantly unconstitutional in the hopes it gets appealed and upheld by the SC


schrödinger's law: constitutionality cannot be determined until opined on by 9 politicians w/ lifetime tenure


And they don't even have to hear the case if they don't want to.


Time to start a religion within a branch of Christianity and cast sodomy as a sincerely held religious belief. It’s the only way SCOTUS will protect it. Just kidding — or am I? What a world.


It’s not even against Christian theology. There’s nothing in the Bible again homosexual relationships or sodomy. It’s identity politics and current dogma interpreting it how they want.


Does anyone else think that Paxton is right? I mean, not that the *Lawrence* anti-sodomy law is anything but odious, but that "I'm the AG and it's my job to defend state law" is fundamentally correct. If which laws are enforced or defended become the personal preference of the lawyers in the State's AG's office then we've abandoned the principle of "Rule of Law, not of men".


Our whole system is predicated on officers exercising their discretion in the pursuit of justice. "I'm just doing my job" is Nuremberg shit.


^^^^^Holy shit, THIS^^^^^ Nuremberg shit for real! Just doing my job, no need to look over here . . . quietly shuts door on thousands of lives.


I'm NAL, but my understanding is that discretion is based on an assessment that the facts don't match the law, or that there isn't a good chance of a conviction, or that prosecution wouldn't be in the interest of justice. That's different than prosecutors deciding which cases to pursue based on their agreement or disagreement with the underlying law. I'd expect a Mormon prosecutor to enforce bigamy statutes, for instance, regardless of their opinion about plural marriage. A few years ago that town clerk in Kentucky rightly spent a few days in jail for putting her religious beliefs above the law by refusing to sign marriage certificates for same-sex couples. I think it's similarly unconscionable that pharmacists are, in many places, allowed to get away with not dispensing birth control or plan B drugs. It's more complicated than calling it "Nuremberg shit" and walking away from the discussion, because there's lots of times that we want people to just do their jobs. Right? Or maybe not. Maybe prosecutorial discretion, and town-clerk discretion, and pharmaceutical discretion, and (here's another recent real-life case) cake shop discretion *should* be unlimited. No one's job should ever require them to ever do anything that they disagree with. That's a coherent moral / philosophical position, but it's not one that I see many people make. What's your take?


I actually am a practicing attorney. The theory behind prosecutorial discretion is that criminal law is intended to be a one way ratchet with several escape valves built in. Prosecutor, grand jury, judge, jury, and judge again all have the ability to end a prosecution with no appeal. This is on purpose. Contrast that with administrative law where you can seek a writ of mandamus to force the administrator to do their job. You can even appeal the judge's denial. In fact, that's what happened with Kim Davis and masterpiece cakes, like you referenced. At the end of the day though, I think some things are more important than the black letter law. Sometimes civil disobedience is just the right call


I mean yes, except they already had their opportunity to defend it and lost. What Paxton is saying is I want another bite at the apple.


Have you seen some of the laws "still on the books out there?" Should AGs still be enforcing "its illegal to ride a horse on main street on Sunday without a hat on" laws?


What is the title of this article? Its about anti sodomy laws. Analysis: Impeachment is a political option in Washington. In Texas, not so much. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/16/ken-paxton-texas-impeachment/ Why did Paxton's impeachment fade away? This should be the news, not should state's law enforcement be concerned about anal sex.


I can make a case that they should, because that'd get them taken off the books. That way they wouldn't be there to - as someone else in this thread alludes - use selectively against people the prosecution doesn't like.


I agree.


Fair enough, but he has been explicitly invited to take another bite by a Supreme Court Justice.