[okie01]

Just like he sat on the sidelines and 'let things happen' in Mississippi, Cruz did the same for the Lawrence vs Texas case that went to the Supreme Court.

Mama, it's OK to criticize. But, when you do, you really need to be telling the truth.

First, Cruz wasn't even on the sidelines in the Mississippi Affair. That was a Senate leadership show, McConnell's, conducted outside the bounds of the NRSC.

And, when Cruz discovered what had happened, by whom, he immediately resigned.

As to Lawrence v Texas, the SCOTUS took the case in December, 2002, they scheduled briefs in January, 2003 and oral arguments in March, 2003.

Cruz wasn't appointed Solicitor-General until February, 2003. Cruz could NOT have represented the state in Lawrence vs Texas.

As a Texan -- and as a conservative -- you should've known this.

[MamaTexan]

Cruz could NOT have represented the state in Lawrence vs Texas.

Since he was appointed in February and the case heard in MARCH of that year, there is no reason that he couldn't have.