Cruz control
The Dewhurst campaign has found some new ammunition it may be able to use against Ted Cruz. It involves a U.S. Supreme Court case in 2008 in which Justice Anthony Kennedy did not know the law. Neither, so it appears, did Cruz.
A week earlier, in the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court had ruled that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional. From the New York Times story about the ruling, by the newspaper’s Supreme Court reporter, Linda Greenhouse:
When the Supreme Court ruled last week that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, the majority noted that a child rapist could face the ultimate penalty in only six states–not in any of the 30 other states that have the death penalty, and not under the jurisdiction of the federal government either.
It turns out that Justice Kennedy’s confident assertion about the absence of federal law was wrong.
A military law blog had pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.
So the Supreme Court had erred: The majority had stated that a child rapist could face the death penalty in only six states–not in any of the 30 other states that have the death penalty, and not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. But the changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice were, of course, under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Why did this matter? Because, Ms. Greenhouse wrote:
This inventory of jurisdictions was a central part of the Court’s analysis, the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.
This is where Ted Cruz comes in. He argued the case in support of Louisiana on behalf of a coalition of ten states. In preparing for the case, he told Ms. Greenhouse, the existence of the military provision “simply eluded everyone’s research.”
Now, here is the political context:
The Texas Legislature had passed Jessica’s Law, which imposes the death penalty on certain child rapists. Dewhurst was a major driver of the legislation. Several states joined Texas in calling for justice in cases involving the rape of a child.
It was Cruz’s job to defend the law before the Supreme Court, but (as the Dewhurst camp will claim), Cruz failed to do sufficient research surrounding the death penalty, with the result that Jessica’s Law did not contribute to the determination of “evolving standards of decency” in child rape cases.
Cruz’s oversight became the basis of an unsuccessful effort to get the Supreme Court to rehear the case. The request for rehearing noted that the oversight was a “significant error.”
From the Dewhurst camp’s point of view, Cruz’s “significant error” caused the Texas law to be defeated, and tougher penalties for child rapists did not occur.
Is Cruz’s failure to research the changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice sufficient to become the basis for an attack ad? We won’t know the answer until we see the ad. The argument will be that if Cruz had done the proper research and found the change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the majority might have changed its notion of an evolving standard of decency and taken a tougher view of how child rape should be penalized.
In an earlier post, I raised the question of whether the Dewhurst camp had any more bombs to throw at Cruz. This could be one. If you agree with the Dewhurst campaign’s view of the incident, due to mistakes made by Cruz, the death penalty for child predators was ruled unconstitutional. Cruz had failed to research federal legislation that made child rape a capital offense in the UCMJ – legislation that would have helped the case, since the Supreme Court made their ruling under the impression that there was no federal statute authorizing the death penalty for child rapists, when there was one.
As the Dewhurst campaign will try to portray this incident, internal e-mails from the attorney general’s office will show that Cruz had not done the proper research on this case. Writing to another attorney about the mistake, Cruz said, “Wow, this seems pretty significant. Is it right? Did we ever uncover it?” And he later wrote, “I need to call Greenhouse back this morning. She may well write this in the NY Times that the OSG [Office of the Solicitor General] screwed up by not finding it – would love to have some sort of response, so we don’t look silly.”
Ultimately, if the ad reaches the production stage, Dewhurst’s argument will be that Cruz’s research resulted in the Supreme Court’s not imposing stricter punishment for child rape.
Jurassic Park says:
Just when you thought the Dewhurst campaign couldn’t get any more cynical and disgusting. And Paul’s analysis couldn’t get any more postulating-ly crappy.
This happens.
Where does Carney and Co.’s shame reside? Probably on that island of his.
Reply »
"silly" ted Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
the other half of this nugget (that has clearly upset the ted cruz staff if the comments here are any indication) could be that dewhurst is the one that passed the law–his signature accomplishment at the time. it used to be pretty much all he talked about.
cruz killed the dewhurst baby. interesting angle.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Grow up. It’s about WIN-NING.
Reply »
anon Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
But Cruz did blow it….right? So how is Dewhurst disgusting? You saying Cruz, if the shoe was on the other foot, wouls pass on this? These are right wingers for heavens sake, decency eludes all of them.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I find this humorous since Cruz is pushing himself as the real conservative in this race. Would a “true” conservative take the position that child predators avoid the death penalty? Certainly not. But certain attorneys will push whatever agenda you want them to if they are paid enough. Certain people will vote however you want them to if the money is right. Let me introduce you to the real Mr. Cruz.
Reply »
Euclid Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Cruz argued in favor of the death penalty for child rapists.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 4:50 am
And that is a mark against Ted Cruz. That is stunningly bad policy. A lot of innocent people will be murdered by the state if that goes into effect.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 9:39 am
Who cares?
Mason says:
As a veteran, I can tell you that this is just another ridiculous distraction from the Dewhurst campaign. The UCMJ is an entirely different animal than civilian law and isn’t generally going to be relevant to a court’s analysis. It appears the AG’s and their staff and everyone else working on behalf of the 10 states missed this issue. To blame Cruz for missing this is just to dredge up randomness in order to make a political attack.
Reply »
anon Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
i think this line of attack is too academic and inside baseball to be effective. that being said, if the laws of foreign nations can inform the Court’s conception of “evolving standards of decency,” then the UCMJ certain can as well.
Reply »
Desperation, Thy Name is Dewhurst says:
This attack is as shameful as the rest. First they tell you that Cruz is a hot-shot lawyer, and now they’re saying “No, don’t vote for him, he’s a bad lawyer.” Bullshit. He hasn’t won national best brief awards because he’s a bad lawyer. He was appointed SG because he’s one of the best in the country.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Quit whining. Y’all wanted to play hardball, right?
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Fun to watch the wingnuts try to out-nasty, out-lie and out-gasbag each other.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 8:42 am
no matter how much liberals shout “dirty politics” not one charge of racism has been uttered, as seen in the Obama/Clinton lovefest in ’08.
Republicans can’t even begin to imagine what dirty politics is as compared to democrats.
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 9:34 am
I told ya that Dewhurst would pull a Willie Horton on Cruz and I’m expecting him to continue using aggressive negative TV ads from here until July 31st.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
First he was a Red-Chinese Communist. Then he was an amnesty-loving Mexican bandito. Then he was a DC establishment goon (with ties to such DC establishments as RON PAUL). Now they’re going to tell you he supports child molesters. It’s all a big lie, told so that the Dewhurst campaign can distract from his record of absenteeism and weak, liberal leadership (when he was there) as Lite Gov.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Exactly. Charged Dewhurst with mulitple counts of violating Art 86 of the UCMJ.
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 10:16 am
I heard on my telephone message now that he’s also a Martian.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
very complicated…his failing has to be simple like failing to remember agencies of government that you want to axe.
Reply »
TexRusk says:
UCMJ is completely irrelevant. It works very differently from civilian law. Under UCMJ, you can be put to death for desertion, and it happened in World War II. Is there a state statute that allows you to be executed for desertion?
I sure hope not, because David Dewhurst might be in trouble for all those times he handed the steering wheel over to Kevin Eltife, or just didn’t even show up to do his job.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
If you look at the SC’s ruling on the rehearing, it was not irrelevant.
Reply »
Gen. Sam Dallas says:
Nice to see that Ted Cruz is claiming this case as part of his proven record. Unbelievable.
http://www.tedcruz.org/proven-record/combating-sexual-predators/
Reply »
"silly" ted Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
is this why abbott won’t endorse him? incompetence?
Reply »
Dave Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
If he’s incompetent, he’s certainly giving Dewhurst a run for his money.
Reply »
Whoopie Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Looks like Cruz has competence-envy.
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 9:35 am
Cruz tried to run for State AG in 2010, but bailed out of that when Abbott decided to seek reelection, and now he’s running for KBH’s US Senate seat and is way behind in the polls trying to bring Palin to save his butt.
Reply »
College Texan says:
Cruz apparently thought it was important to the case. Emails from the AG/SG’s office show that Cruz didn’t want to “look silly.” This was when some journalists was looking into the case and Cruz not knowing about the UCMJ.
Reply »
TexRusk Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
You’re forgetting that not only Cruz, but every single Supreme Court Justice and every one of their clerks would have had to miss this too. That’s a whole lot of incompetence spread widely, if that’s what you’re alledging.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
I suspect Carney et al are reviewing the worst child rapists to find Ted Cruz’s Willie Horton.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Thats going to take some balls, Crosby.
Reply »
Savrola Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
There was one. And Ted kept him in jail, despite the liberal attempts to spring him. See Medellin vs. Texas.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Wow. How do you bumpersticker that attack against Cruz? I don’t see that one working.
Speaking of the UCMJ, Dewhurst should be charged with a violation of Art. 86 for not attending more candidate forums.
Reply »
TexRusk Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Not to mention his shameless absenteeism and infamous tardiness in the Senate. This race would be over if the real Lt. Governor, Kevin Eltife, was running.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Eltife does not have the money to run for statewide office regardless of the outcome of the potential Texas Senate Congeniality Contest.
Reply »
Simon Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
CONGENIALITY Contest? Oh my GOD, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever…..
Anonymous Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
CRUZ HEARTS RAPISTS. There’s your bumpersticker.
Reply »
Willie James Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
“Cruzin’ for Pedophiles”
Reply »
Dave Reply:
June 20th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
“Pedophiles for Cruz”
emptyk says:
Why in the world do you have to characterize your opponent as a bay raping communist in order to win? Wonder what would happen if you said that Cruz was part of a set of right wing extremists who offer to ensure our tax dollars will get spent in Nebraska.
Cruz won’t represent Texas, he’ll work for Grover Norquist and Jim Demint.
So much for schools and roads, but Lordy he’s pure.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Why are people talking about Cruz having “to work for Texas”?..Cruz would only have to work for Texas if we needed anything…There is no need for that. Didn’t Governor Oops prove it to the world during his recent travels to places like New Hampshire, etc. that everything was wonderful in Texas?
Reply »
Truthseeker says:
Yes that’s Ted Cruz – obsessing about the United Nations while preventing child rapists from being executed in Texas. Nice!
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 4:48 am
A lot of innocent people will be murdered by the state if Jessica’s Law in its entirety is enacted. The death penalty for “child rapists” is stunningly bad policy.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Reducing to lowest denominator…Cruz will take up any position you pay him to. If you want him to keep pedophiles from being executed, hire Cruz; if you don’t want to have to pay up after stealing and utilizing proprietary tire designs, hire Cruz. If I had big money and wanted the Senate to push a protective bill through, I’d hire Cruz. Forget about the specifics of any given position he has championed; forget about any given position he has defended. Altruism, conservatism, nor morality had anything to do with his being involved. It is all about the money. This is how bigtime attorneys work. There are too many of them in Washington. Vote for the dull guy. There will be no surprises with Dewhurst.
Reply »
Malcolm Wallace says:
Isn’t Ted Cruz tied to Goldman Sachs via his wife’s recent employment there as a high level executive? How can Ted Cruz be the anti-bailout Tea Party candidate with links to bailout-reciever Goldman Sachs? That would explain some of the ease at which Cruz has been able to attract DC and NY contributions.
Wouldn’t it be funny if a candidate linked to Goldman Sachs ran on the “tea party” label and tapped into the angst of middle-class Republican primary voters? It would be ironic for someone who is running for the US Senate to be married into Goldman Sachs, but be out there giving stump speeches about “bank bailouts” and the “free market”… and it would be funny for the Goldman Sach-linked candidate to try to portray the other candidate (who started with nothing and built up a business) as the “out of touch” one.
I think God has a sense of humor.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Ted Cruz’s wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs. His firm represents Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & other Big banks. He’s in the top 6 receipients of contributions from Goldman Sachs. He’s up to his ears in bed with Big Banks & Big Law. People are getting taken by a smooth talking snake oil salesman.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The white trash Teapublicans are really that stupid. Blame the bailout on the poor folk rather than the guys who actually orchestrated the game.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name says:
“Cruz Control”. Damn, that’s a clever play on words. Never saw that coming.
I hope that didn’t come off as being overly surly. It’s been a long week and I’m not in the best of moods. The person I’m attached to didn’t have my weekly brushing and shampooing performed this weekend, which has made this week a more difficult one. Hint, hint.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Cruz must be a shitty lawyer. No wonder Haaaaarvard has dropped to # 3. Always always check military law. Jesus.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Anyone advocating the death penalty for child rape is a moron.
There are plenty of people regularly murdered by the state who are completely innocent of the capital crime they were convicted of.
And now these demagogues want to ADD child rape to the list of capital crimes. So your ex doesn’t like who your new girlfriend is. Simply just get your 4-5 year old daughter or son to accuse you of child rape. Put it before a Williamson County jury with a Williamson Country prosecuter and they will be ready to stick a needle in your arm in no time flat.
Makes people feel “good” to have the state murdered people only convicted of child rape.
Note that I said only “convicted” because “convicted” sure as hell does not mean you actually did the crime.
What if a bunch of Rick Perry’s and Dewhursts were your investigators, prosecutors, jurors???
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 21st, 2012 at 6:07 am
What’s your point, Robert? This thread is not about the execution issue. It’s about Cruz overlooking crucial presedent. To me, it’s knowing that he could just as easily have been arguing the other side of the issue without any personal emotional or moral involvement. He is what he is. What do you call someone who will hit from either side of the plate for you for the right amount of money?
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 12:39 am
What is Ted Cruz? The lessor of 2 evils.
So that is why I am for him. Dewhurst does not have a small government or liberty bone in his body.
Dewhurst’s grandstanding over that idiotic to the max Jessica’s Law is Exhibit #1. He has nothing credible to say that I care about.
Reply »
Lloyd Blankfein says:
I’m pretty sure Mr. Dewhurst keeps a sizable amount of his money with us here at GoldmanSachs. Though I can’t be sure to what extent he may have personally benefitted from that taxpayer bailout we snookered…
Glass houses and whatnot…
Reply »