« In 9/0 ruling, SCOTUS smacks down 3-judge federal court that redrew Texas' Congressional districts; stresses state government's superior role over federal courts in determining the interests of Texas citizens | Main | Did Gingrich, in 1986, attack Reagan for "weak policies" that were "clearly failing" in the Cold War? »
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Beldar endorses Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate from Texas
I meant to post something along these lines many weeks ago, but — better late than never — this will confirm my enthusiastic endorsement of Ted Cruz in the upcoming Texas GOP primary race for United States Senator, to fill the seat being vacated by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Ted is someone who first came to my attention during the Texas redistricting litigation in 2003-2004, and he did a genuinely remarkable job as Solicitor General for the State of Texas from 2003-2008. In that capacity, he was the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court and all the state and federal appellate courts. And he has been simply superb in every aspect of that job, including briefing and oral argument on several blockbuster SCOTUS cases. He's already been a genuine hero as a public servant; his conservative instincts and principles are thorough-going and deeply rooted in a compelling personal history; and I have no doubt that he can bring that same level of excellence, that same earnest public servant's heart, on behalf of the people of Texas when he's in the U.S. Senate.
I have no ax to grind with two of Ted's three primary opponents. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has been an effective leader in an important job, and former Dallas mayor Tom Leppert has earned his fans. (I have a hard time taking the fourth candidate, former SMU running back, ESPN sportscaster, and political rookie Craig James, very seriously as a candidate for this important an office.) I expect there will end up being a run-off between Cruz and Dewhurst, and that's fine.
But I commend to you Brian Bolduc's cover-story on Ted in a recent issue of National Review to help you understand why Ted Cruz is among the up-and-comers of the GOP on the national stage. This is a strategic vote, one that Texas conservatives should make not just for now but for the future.
Ted Cruz simply scares the hell out of the far-sighted strategists of the national Democratic Party, for the very best of reasons. The Angry Left website Think Progress, for example, labels Cruz a "radical" candidate with "fringe constitutional theories" — hysteria they reserve for conservatives who genuinely threaten them the most, whether in the halls of the SCOTUS or on the campaign trail.
I've contributed to Ted's campaign and encourage others to consider doing so. Indeed, I'll be running an unpaid side-bar link to his campaign website throughout the primary season and, I hope, through the general election. Good luck, Ted! I know you'll do us proud.
Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar endorses Ted Cruz for the U.S. Senate from Texas and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
(1) DRJ made the following comment | Jan 24, 2012 1:31:47 PM | Permalink
Ditto, ditto, ditto. I support Ted Cruz.
You might do like a 'Volokh' and give an example of his legal reasoning.
Michael, that's a good idea, but I'm not sure where I'd start. Here is his current biography page at Morgan Lewis, the national law firm whose appellate advocacy section he heads. It includes many of his most notable appeals. Briefs for many of those cases are available online, and you can also find audio files of some of the oral arguments. Here, for example, is a transcript and audio file of his oral argument for the State of Texas as an amicus in Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which he helped uphold the constitutionality of state statutes that potentially impose the death penalty for the worst child rapists. Note: You don't get invited to give SCOTUS oral arguments very often when you're a mere amicus counsel representing a state that's not directly involved in the criminal appeal. But the Supreme Court wanted to hear what Ted Cruz had to say.
(4) ez made the following comment | Feb 2, 2012 6:41:06 PM | Permalink
Cruz has no morals.
Why would he defend a Chinese company after they pirated Jordan Fishmans ideas?
(5) ez made the following comment | Feb 2, 2012 6:43:55 PM | Permalink
Whe Ted first announced his run for the Senate the Jordan Fishman stories were all over. I would bet his legal expertise helped shut down or pull many of these sories.
(6) ez made the following comment | Feb 2, 2012 6:54:45 PM | Permalink
I have asked the Cruz campaign to address this issue and have never heard back. I know of a few people that have asked him personally with no luck.
Something doesn't pass the smell test with this guy.
(7) Paul made the following comment | Feb 2, 2012 11:08:02 PM | Permalink
I have read the link that "ez" provided and it seems to me that the bad actor in this case is an American former-employee of the patent holder in question. Furthermore, one wonders how from a limited government perspective how an American court can even assert jurisdiction over the case as it seems that most of the wrongdoing took place outside the United States (and thus outside the rightful jurisdiction of US Courts). If anyone is to blame for the many instances of Chinese theft of American intellectual property it is our own Federal Government that, years ago granted most favored status to the PRC despite ample evidence that the Chinese do not have a true market economy and have never shown any real interest in abiding by international agreements designed to protect such property.
The jury found for the plaintiff and if this is overturned on appeal it would be due to the incompetence of plaintiff's counsel, and any attorney for defendant (in this case a Chinese company) would be ethically compelled to point this out in the appeal.
It is silly and foolish to condemn a candidate like Mr. Cruz on the flimsy basis that he did appellate work in this case. Tell me "ez" do you own any goods of Chinese manufacture? A T-shirt perhaps, or perhaps a cell phone? Should you (or anyone else) be condemned for buying such goods as they may have been made in factories that use prison labor? or in dangerous working conditions not compliant with US labor law? Is protecting the intellectual property rights and imposing those laws onto foreign nations of any more just than doing the same with labor or environmental laws? (as the progressives constantly attempt to do).
Nothing in the article you are pushing in this thread indicates that Mr. Cruz did anything either illegal or unethical. Furthermore, his actions as a private attorney are different only in scale to your purchase of Chinese made goods. In either case he (or you) is doing business as a private actor directly or indirectly with a Chinese Company that may or may not have violated (in China)any number of US laws. The only moral difference that I see is that as an appellate attorney the Chinese are almost certainly paying a premium for his services and wealth is flowing into our economy while yours (and mine and all Americans) purchase of "cheap" Chinese goods causes wealth to flow into the Chinese economy.
Your question reveals breathtaking ignorance of legal ethics in particular, and of our legal system and the Rule of Law in general. Lawyers defend clients because our system of justice requires that litigants be permitted to present and defend their cases through lawyers. Not only the righteous, as judged by you in all your vast and profound wisdom, are permitted lawyers. Everyone is, including Chinese companies, good or bad.
All of society benefits when even criminals and wrong-doers have access to counsel, for without competent lawyers to help them realize their exposure, there would be no settlements of civil cases, no plea bargains or guilty pleas, and the system would grind to a halt instantly and permanently. The right to counsel, and the corresponding requirement that litigants get lawyers and those lawyers do their best in an adversary system, are so fundamental that you don't realize they're the oxygen which protects every right you possess. And you were presumably absent in school the day they taught about John Adams' representation of the Redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, I suppose — a fine example of one of our founding fathers vindicating a principle that predates and became the foundation for our own American judicial system.
But your question about, and criticism of, Ted Cruz are crafted to assume all the answers to all the disputes that the Rule of Law is set up to answer. You've set yourself as superior to it and all its participants, so much so that you pass your righteous and ill-informed judgment on even the advocates. Tell me, are the jurors and judges involved also unethical? You don't know, you don't have a clue, all you have is a harsh opinion based on speculation and bigotry based on a link from a lefty writer at a lefty magazine.
Lucky for you (if you're ever in trouble), the system treats your opinion on these litigants' courtroom fights as background noise, rather than anything entitled to any weight. So do I.
So, ez, I reject your question and your criticism and all of your very uninformed and egotistical premises. Go cut and paste your nonsense elsewhere on behalf of whatever candidate or special interest you think you're helping, because someone with so little understanding of the Rule of Law isn't going to be a regular fan of this blog. I, and every other seasoned lawyer I know, could find our characters assassinated by such as you for no more than doing our professional duty honorably and ethically, but I refuse to give you a platform to do that.
Team Cruz has graciously linked and quoted from this post on the campaign website.
For clarity and for the benefit of those not already familiar with Think Progress, I've added the descriptive term "Angry Left website" above to the original post.
I probably was too harsh in my reaction to commenter ez. Mea culpa. He may genuinely be unaware of how he's been manipulated by the likes of Paul Burka and the Democratic Party agenda he and his magazine consistently promote. After quoting, at great length, the smear job written by "former investigative reporters" (who've clearly been fed a pre-packaged and highly selective version of the relevant facts by the litigants opposing Cruz' client), Burka writes:
I think very highly of Mr. Cruz as an attorney, having heard him argue the Tom DeLay midcensus redistricting case in the U.S. Supreme Court. I don’t think attorneys ought to be pilloried for the clients they take on. But I agree with the analysis by Plaza de Armas that this is more than a business case; it’s a political case, one that could turn Cruz’s tea party support against him. It’s worth keeping an eye on.
That, folks, is shamelessly disingenuous. Attorneys ought not be pilloried for their clients, writes Burka the licensed member of the Texas Bar, who damn well knows everything I've scolded ez about above. Unless it's somehow a "political case" — meaning there's a politician involved whose reputation Burka would like to destroy for partisan political reasons. In that case, wrapping a smear in pious, hypocritical disclaimers like Burka's is somehow noble. I think it's sleazy, but it is undeniably effective in misleading the woefully uninformed and gullible like ez.
The comments to this entry are closed.