GOP truly has become a parody of themselves

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,624
5,401
1,743
Somewhere
This is the GOP in 2022 folks!

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional.

Paxton said during a Friday interview with NewsNation he would defend the law banning sodomy because the Supreme Court in the past has “stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with.”

“They were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This was one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue and it would depend on the state law.”

When asked if he would have a personal issue with defending a law banning sodomy, Paxton said he would not.

“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that, that is my job,” the Texas attorney general said.

The Supreme Court ruled a Texas law banning two persons of the same sex from having sexual intercourse was unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The justices said the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to life and liberty without interference from the government.

The 2003 ruling overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed a similar Georgia statue banning sodomy to stay in effect. The landmark Lawrence v. Texas case eventually paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1971), which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right based on the Due Process Clause.
Bannon requests trial delay over Jan. 6 hearing publicity
Ketanji Brown Jackson to be formally sworn in as Supreme Court justice Thursday

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew national headlines when he suggested the court reconsider other cases based on the Due Process Clause, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paxton on Friday said he would have to “take a look” at any statute Texas were to pass if the high court overturned Lawrence v. Texas.

“This is all new territory for us. I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and if we thought we could defend it,” Paxton said. “If it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...y-if-supreme-court-reconsiders-landmark-case/
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,136
21,181
1,743
This is the GOP in 2022 folks!

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional.

Paxton said during a Friday interview with NewsNation he would defend the law banning sodomy because the Supreme Court in the past has “stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with.”

“They were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This was one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue and it would depend on the state law.”

When asked if he would have a personal issue with defending a law banning sodomy, Paxton said he would not.

“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that, that is my job,” the Texas attorney general said.

The Supreme Court ruled a Texas law banning two persons of the same sex from having sexual intercourse was unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The justices said the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to life and liberty without interference from the government.

The 2003 ruling overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed a similar Georgia statue banning sodomy to stay in effect. The landmark Lawrence v. Texas case eventually paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1971), which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right based on the Due Process Clause.
Bannon requests trial delay over Jan. 6 hearing publicity
Ketanji Brown Jackson to be formally sworn in as Supreme Court justice Thursday

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew national headlines when he suggested the court reconsider other cases based on the Due Process Clause, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paxton on Friday said he would have to “take a look” at any statute Texas were to pass if the high court overturned Lawrence v. Texas.

“This is all new territory for us. I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and if we thought we could defend it,” Paxton said. “If it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...y-if-supreme-court-reconsiders-landmark-case/
Hate to pile on because you’ve already gracefully conceded on this issue….

Actually I don’t mind piling on because I know you’re a big boy that will take it in the good spirit it is intended….

@RxCowboy. :p
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,582
1,925
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
This is the GOP in 2022 folks!

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional.

Paxton said during a Friday interview with NewsNation he would defend the law banning sodomy because the Supreme Court in the past has “stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with.”

“They were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This was one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue and it would depend on the state law.”

When asked if he would have a personal issue with defending a law banning sodomy, Paxton said he would not.

“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that, that is my job,” the Texas attorney general said.

The Supreme Court ruled a Texas law banning two persons of the same sex from having sexual intercourse was unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The justices said the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to life and liberty without interference from the government.

The 2003 ruling overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed a similar Georgia statue banning sodomy to stay in effect. The landmark Lawrence v. Texas case eventually paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1971), which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right based on the Due Process Clause.
Bannon requests trial delay over Jan. 6 hearing publicity
Ketanji Brown Jackson to be formally sworn in as Supreme Court justice Thursday

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew national headlines when he suggested the court reconsider other cases based on the Due Process Clause, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paxton on Friday said he would have to “take a look” at any statute Texas were to pass if the high court overturned Lawrence v. Texas.

“This is all new territory for us. I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and if we thought we could defend it,” Paxton said. “If it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...y-if-supreme-court-reconsiders-landmark-case/
So, lots and lots of Republicans find the practice of sodomy between the same sexes to be incredibly gross and offensive and should be a serious crime. They would also point out that God finds it as an abomination. They may also find that the practice of sodomy as being too highly gross to do with the opposite sex and would be sure to want any sodomy ban to include between heterosexuals. They would believe that the practice of heterosexual sodomy runs counter to God's will, since it's the kind of sex that doesn't replenish the earth as God commanded Noah's family to do when they emerged from the ark. The big problem, though, is how to find people indulging in sodomy, so the law can be enforced. That big problem will still be there, if Texas Republicans want to make the practice of fornication a felony, assuming it's not already a felony.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,582
1,925
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
Back and forth and forth and back.
She sucks
Why is that? Because she doesn't support giving state tax dollars to private schools, including religious ones? If so, you might want to support a petition to vote to change the state constitution to allow state tax dollar support for private as well as religious schools. Maybe lots of Catholic schools are still open.
 

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
8,614
4,875
1,743
43
Lily Lake, IL
Last night my 8yr old daughter was watching MSNBC, she turned from Rachel Maddow and looked at me with tears brimming in her eyes...
"Daddy, is president Trump going to run us over in his presidential limousine?" With a lump in my throat, I could only reply.."Yes"
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,232
33,350
1,743
oklahoma city
This is the GOP in 2022 folks!

Texas AG says he would back law banning sodomy if Supreme Court reconsiders landmark case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said last week he would back a law banning the act of sodomy if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overrule a case deeming it unconstitutional.

Paxton said during a Friday interview with NewsNation he would defend the law banning sodomy because the Supreme Court in the past has “stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional provision dealing with.”

“They were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This was one of those issues, and there may be more. It would depend on the issue and it would depend on the state law.”

When asked if he would have a personal issue with defending a law banning sodomy, Paxton said he would not.

“My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that, that is my job,” the Texas attorney general said.

The Supreme Court ruled a Texas law banning two persons of the same sex from having sexual intercourse was unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

The justices said the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to life and liberty without interference from the government.

The 2003 ruling overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which allowed a similar Georgia statue banning sodomy to stay in effect. The landmark Lawrence v. Texas case eventually paved the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade (1971), which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right based on the Due Process Clause.
Bannon requests trial delay over Jan. 6 hearing publicity
Ketanji Brown Jackson to be formally sworn in as Supreme Court justice Thursday

In his concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas drew national headlines when he suggested the court reconsider other cases based on the Due Process Clause, including Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Paxton on Friday said he would have to “take a look” at any statute Texas were to pass if the high court overturned Lawrence v. Texas.

“This is all new territory for us. I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and if we thought we could defend it,” Paxton said. “If it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...y-if-supreme-court-reconsiders-landmark-case/
Sounds like the Texas AG is gonna pretend that prosecutorial discretion doesn’t exist so that he can do what he wants to do while pretending he has to.