Replies

Sometimes it is difficult to stand up for the rule of law.

Too difficult for Ted Cruz to do, apparently, since he chose to cover up for a violation of the law:

In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.
Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.
(emphasis added)

We've already had enough corrupt Presidents who elevate human misdeeds above the rule of law. We don't need to add Canada Cruz to the list.

You appear to make an excellent point. It will be interesting how Cruz responds to this. But I think Brooks bias is evident in that he did not disclose what the prior convictions were.

Some detail from CNN News article:

The jury found Haley guilty of being a habitual offender and recommended a sentence of 16 1/2 years -- a recommendation that the sentencing judge followed. The judge deemed Haley a "habitual offender" on the ground that he had two prior felony convictions -- one for attempted robbery, the other for delivery of amphetamines.

Now for the fly in the ointment. Under the law, Haley was not eligible to be charged as a habitual offender, because the timing of his prior felonies did not fit the statutory requirements. Unfortunately for Haley, however, his defense lawyer at trial did not notice the problem. And apparently, neither did the prosecutors.

...Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court...

No he didn't. Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General of Texas at the time. In Texas, the Solicitor General works for the Attorney General. Greg Abbott, the Attorney General of Texas, is the one who filed the appeal. Ted Cruz was merely the Texas official who argued the case before SCOTUS. David Brooks is trying to fool us with a little misdirection. He's trying to lay the blame on Cruz, but at the time, Cruz was merely a medium-sized cog in the machinery.

Office of Solicitor General

Another problem with the David Brooks article is that he's trying to make people believe that Ted Cruz is the heartless brute who tried to keep an innocent man in prison. In fact, Michael Wayne Haley was a scumbag felon who discovered a small mistake in the court proceedings and tried to get his sentence overturned on a technicality.

During the penalty phase of respondent's trial, the State introduced records showing that respondent had been convicted of delivery of amphetamine on October 18, 1991, and attempted robbery on September 9, 1992. The record of the second conviction, however, showed that respondent had committed the robbery on October 15, 1991 - three days before his first conviction became final. Neither the prosecutor, nor the defense attorney, nor the witness tendered by the State to authenticate the records, nor the trial judge, nor the jury, noticed the 3-day discrepancy. Indeed, the defense attorney chose not to cross-examine the State's witness or to put on any evidence.

So because of the bizarre way the Texas law was worded, even though he had been convicted of two felonies before and this was his third strike, the second felony technically did not count because he committed the crime 3 days before he was convicted of the first felony. The Brooks article makes it seem like an innocent man was sitting behind bars, and that was not the case.

DRETKE v. HALEY

It's hard to find bad things to say about Ted Cruz. In this article, David Brooks tried and failed.