>>>
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/01/an-nyt-hatchet-job-on-ted-cruz.html
After full briefing and argument, the Supreme Court agreed with Cruz's position by a 6-3 vote. Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined it. Does this reveal something interesting about Justices Ginsburg's and Breyer's characters? Does it convict them of "brutalism," as the title of Brooks's article says about Cruz? Where is his ringing denunciation of these justices for having joined the opinion?
On remand, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case on the correct basis, giving Haley relief. See 376 F.3d 316. Ted Cruz was still Solicitor General and did not take the case back to the Supreme Court. That is because he took the case to the Supreme Court the first time to resolve an important question of law and not to get Haley. Brooks leaves that out. This inconvenient truth gets in the way of his thesis.
And don't shed any tears for Haley. He was, in fact, a habitual criminal. The incorrectness in his sentence was not a matter of any fundamental injustice but merely a timing quirk of Texas's habitual criminal law. Because he committed his second felony three days before his conviction of the first one became final, he was not eligible for the "three strikes" sentence on the third felony under Texas law, but only on the barest of technicalities. He actually got off easy in the end. Brooks doesn't trouble you with that. It's another inconvenient truth.
This column is a sleazy hit piece, presenting readers with a distorted picture painted with half truths.
>>>
(Entire article is at the link. Zim.)
Mad Poet Strikes Again.
| 
