Have you actually looked up his supreme court record? It is not nearly as hot and impressive as he makes it out to be. In fact, one could conclude that the guy is just another -surprise, surprise - slimy lawyer.
In his first case Frew v. Hawkins (1996) Cruz argued that Texas was not bound by a consent decree entered into by the Texas attorney general in a class action Medicaid case. Cruz tried to argue that state sovereignty rights afforded by the 11th Amendment barred the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, states are bound, under the US Constitution by their obligations of contract and a consent decree is a contract recorded with the Court. The court ruled against him 9-0.
His next case was just as problematic, Dretke v. Haley (2004). 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 to 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.
Here is what transpired at oral argument:
J. Kennedy: You’ve conceded that this sentence is unlawful?”
Cruz: Yes.
Kennedy Well then, why are you here? Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?
Cruz: No
Kennedy: Well, so a man does 15 years so you can vindicate your legal point in some other case? ... I just don’t understand why you don’t dismiss this case and move to lower the sentence.
Those are the values of your constitutional conservative sleezebag Lyin' Ted.
Is that you Jose Medellin?