His first case, as Solicitor General of Texas Frew v. Hawkins (1996), Cruz argued that Texas was not bound by a consent decree that Texas entered into in federal court in a class action Medicaid case. Cruz tried to argue that state sovereignty barred enforcement against Texas of its own agreement. The court ruled against him 9-0.
In his next case Dretke v. Haley (2004) Cruz argued that despite errors by the state of Texas, Haley should languish in jail for 15 years to make a point for other cases in the state of Taxas. By way of background Haley was convicted of stealing a calculator from a Walmart, a misdemeanor with a maximum prison sentence of 2 years. But Texas invoked the repeat offenders act and he was sentenced 15 years. Some years later an attorney reviewed the record and appealed on the grounds that Texas had misapplied the repeat offenders act. Before the Supreme Court, Cruz argued that the Haley had waived any objection to his sentence by leaving it so long (Really!!) and also argued that he was concerned about the impact of an adverse opinion in the Haley matter on other Texas cases. He cratered on that one too.
The issue is not genius in his arguments, but utter unscrupulousness and lack of judgment in what to pursue and for what reasons. I am not accusing Cruz of being Nifong, but the judgment clouded ambition is certainly there.
Give us a review of the cases he won. And he was in essence a defense attorney for the state, not a saint. What do you think attorneys do for goodness sake?