Ted Cruz Hates Due Process
By smearing public defenders, the Texas senator shows what he thinks of constitutional rights.

During his Fox News appearance on Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) said that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson and other public defenders root for criminals because "their heart is with the murderers."
Ted Cruz goes on a bizarre, lie-filled rant against public defenders:
"Public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal."
Reminder: every American is constitutionally guaranteed legal representation. pic.twitter.com/wg0hvwwydV
— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) April 4, 2022
"She came out of law school, and she clerked for Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court. And she became a federal public defender," Cruz said. "And you and I have both known public defenders. People go and do that because their heart is with criminal defendants. Their heart is with the murderers, the criminals, and that that's who they're rooting for. A lot of the same reasons people go and become prosecutors—because they want to lock up bad guys—public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal. And I gotta say that inclination was not just while she was a public defender, but she carried it onto the bench."
Our adversarial system of justice depends on defense attorneys making the government prove its case and meet a high burden of evidence. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel to make sure everyone—the unpopular, the poor, and yes, even the guilty—has the benefit of a dogged defense against the government's power to relieve them of their liberty and property.
Supposed conservatives like Cruz should welcome this skepticism of government power, but he and others, like Sens. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), and Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), used Jackson's confirmation hearing to demagogue and grandstand about the horror of her representing Guantanamo Bay detainees.
As Charles Cooke notes over at National Review, using Cruz's logic, we could also conclude that Cruz has a natural inclination toward banning dildos, since he argued in favor of Texas' ban on sales of sex toys when he was the state solicitor general.
Cruz would argue, and has argued, that he was merely doing his job, which was to defend the laws passed by the Texas Legislature. State attorney general offices often trot out this line when it's convenient. Vice President Kamala Harris, despite saying she personally opposes the death penalty, defended California's execution protocols as state attorney general, citing her duty to defend her client.
Whether state attorney generals are ethically bound to defend what they consider unjust or unconstitutional laws in the same way a defense attorney must zealously represent their client, though, is a trickier and largely unresolved question. For example, Harris somehow found the political courage to shirk her supposed duty when she refused to defend California's Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage. "It's well within the authority vested in me as the elected attorney general to use the discretion of my office to make decisions about how we will use our resources and what issue we will weigh in on or not," Harris said.
Public defenders don't have the luxury of choosing not to defend a client when it's a political liability. That's what makes them an indispensable part of our court system.
Ted Cruz went to an Ivy League law school and clerked for a Supreme Court justice. He knows all this, but he's an unserious person using his perch in the U.S. Senate to get on the TV and spout unserious arguments. It's an embarrassment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Progs say that being a lawyer for Trump is reason enough to bar you from practice, so sorry if you don't like your own rules.
I'll posit that C.J. has never actually met a public defender. It can be said that they are necessary to a fair justice system and ALSO say that "public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal." Because it's true. Noting that doesn't make Cruz a hypocrite, but I'd bet it hasn't swayed C.J. one way or the other.
If that's the inclination of a given or most public defenders, sobeit. The question as to whether they can step out of that role is an entirely legitimate one. The system requires people on both sides and in the middle, but that doesn't mean they are interchangeable.
I dunno, there's public defenders who believe their job is necessary just in case there's an innocent client who can't afford representation, and who believe even the guilty deserve fair representation. I'd be shocked if even most public defenders are pro-crime, to be honest. They're pro system, and in favor of accountability.
And I am too. The authority and power of the state to lock people up needs to be limited and they should be forced to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Public defenders are important and critical to the adversarial process of limiting the already expansive and broad power of prosecutors.
I generally defend Ted Cruz when he's been mischaracterized but I think this was a ridiculous and shitty statement.
That's perfectly fine. But it is also perfectly fine to make an argument that people who have been public defenders may make poor SCOTUS justices. When Cruz is making that argument, he isn't "smearing public defenders" nor calling into doubt "constitutional rights".
In any case, KJB is unsuitable to be a supreme court justice, not because she was a public defender, but because she has lied to Congress and is using neo-Marxist ideology to undermine the US justice system.
But it is also perfectly fine to make an argument that people who have been public defenders may make poor SCOTUS justices.
Which is not what Cruz said, not even close. If he'd said that and made cogent arguments about that, perhaps. He actually attacked the profession of public defenders which is something a former lawyer and a sitting Senator really shouldn't do. It's an important, necessary aspect of our criminal justice system.
I've defended a lot of shit Senator Cruz has said and done but this was really shitty of him.
And if Cruz wasn't intending to smear all public defenders, this is one of those situations he really needs to clarify because the words were definitely a smear. Previously I've discouraged apologies from people who did nothing wrong, but this was wrong.
His statement uses the words often and inclined. By basic definitions it can't include all public defenders. Moreover, given KJB gave a sentence under the recommended guidelines to a pedo who produced CP of his own 10 year old daughter, she is clearly inclined in that direction.
Maybe Cruz should have brought in 4 or 5 tearfully sobbing guys (being comforted by their attorney, no less) who swear that Jackson sexually assaulted them in college and that they’ve lived with the anger and guilt all of these years. I’m sure that would have been much more convincing to Democrats, who would have no-doubt rejected her nomination in lock step.
I literally don't care about what he said during the hearings. He asked KBJ about her history, her rulings, and it's all fair game. And the Kavanaugh hearings were a fucking sham, I'm with you.
Ted Cruz just shoved his foot into his mouth in this interview by impugning public defenders as being in favor of murderers. He's a smart man, he knows what words he was using. He seldom misspeaks, to be honest-he's fantastic when he rails against Merrick Garland and chooses his words very carefully to ask him why he's calling for parents to be investigated as terrorists.
He knows the word "Defendant," and he could have made his point by saying that public defenders are often biased toward defendants and toward defense arguments, but that they can't carry that bias onto the bench. He didn't say that, he said they're in favor of murderers and criminals and their hearts on the side of those people.
I watch a lot of trials. I consider myself pro-defendant, in that I want to see the state held to proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean I like murderers or criminals, I just think the government MUST be held to its burden for the sake of our criminal justice system.
I call it like I see it, and this was very shitty of Ted Cruz to say.
I'm no Ted Cruz pom pom cheerleader, but what if he had said "taxi drivers are necessary in society, but they are insufferable"? (Just a random example). His personal dislikes and prejudices have nothing to do with curtailing anyone's rights.
But that's not a fair comparison. It's more like what if he said, "taxi drivers hearts are with the terrorists." I didn't see anywhere that Ted said public defenders were necessary. Maybe he did? Oh, and it was during a confirmation hearing for a taxi driver to be named to the supreme court.
"His personal dislikes and prejudices have nothing to do with curtailing anyone's rights." I disagree strongly if said person is a senator, especially with authoritarian leanings.
Agreed. It’s a shorty statement, and a false one.
He did not attack public defenders, he said they are genetally sympathetic to the criminal by inclination. I couldn't read malice into that, just an explanation of motivation. He also said this nominee carried that zeal in defending criminals onto her role as a judge which is true and the wrong role for a judge.
Why do so many authoritarian conservative posters here think they are libertarians?
Sorry, not intended to be directed at you, SJin. I meant to start a fresh thread.
The remakes about sympathy to criminals, rather than defendants, was a slur.
That said after years of seeing judges inclined to support the state expand the states power and erode the liberties of the citizenry, why shouldn't the bench be more deferential to the defense rather than the state?
Let's not forget that it was KJB, in response to a direct question, who stated she did not have a position on whether people have natural rights.
The dipshit writer here eliding that essential truth in favor of his 'concern' over governmentally enumerated rights.
Ciaramella is clearly not libertarian, just another closeted leftitarian.
If people public defenders make poor SC justices, then so do prosecutors - unless you think a "good" SC justice is someone who twists the Constitution and laws to always find for the government. And tort lawyers are pretty bad people too - either they represent greedy people who used a product carelessly and are trying to get a jackpot award, or they represent sleazy companies who sold bad products.
So perhaps for the SC, we should only accept people educated in the law that never took a case to court?
translation: "But Mommy he stole a cookie first!"
When you actually develop principles, let us know. The fact that you ignore and rail against some instances of abuse while only assaulting examples helpful to the left isnt actually being principled.
But Ashley babbitt deserved it right?
Cut him some slack, he’s barely human.
He's mostly booze at this point.
Ashli Babbitt got exactly what she deserved. When you are part of an angry mob that broke into a secure building, why would it be surprising that one of the people trying to defend those being threatened put her down like the rabid dog she was?
Fascisy says what?
Cops should have opened fire nightly in Portland u guess.
"put her down like the rabid dog she was!!!"
It's neat to see "left libertarians" instantly become Staasi the second someone suggests shooting unarmed January 6 protesters in the head for trespassing wasn't kosher.
She didn't even have a fire extinguisher.
I can’t wait until you leftists get exactly what you deserve.
"Ashli Babbitt got exactly what she deserved."
You're aware George Floyd got what he deserved magnitudes more than Babbitt did.
And he did not deserve it either, mind you.
Ashli Babbitt was a terrorist who was taken down in the midst of carrying out an attack. So yes she did deserve what she got.
George Floyd was a drug addicted moron who demanded he be let out of the police car and put outside before he died due to an OD.
Just saying.
Armed with what? Actively targeting whom?
Leftists scream about fascists to maintain a monopoly.
You can also hold people for over a year without charging them. Reason doesn’t think that’s a violation of due process.
Then again, reason is a bunch lying a holes.
Do you really not see a difference between a Public Defender being assigned the duty to represent a client and an attorney who charges out the nose to represent someone he knows is a crook? These are not the same things at all, but given today’s Republican Party I am not at all surprised that a Trump supporter wouldn’t know the difference. Refusal to acknowledge facts is not the same thing as facts being on your side. Even if you really, really, really want to believe it.
What an odd take away.
That was a response to Damikesc above, equating a hired lawyer representing a person by choice to a Public Defender.
You have no choice in being a public defender? WAs unaware of the drafting of public defenders.
I think the rule, mind you, is retarded but those are the rules progs have set up.
Both "rules" are stupid.
Trump's "lawyers" weren't just representing him in court. They were also acting as accomplices to his criminal conspiracy.
Again, similar to public defenders who lie on behalf of their "clients"
But keep defending an idiotic rule.
you not liking Ted does not mean Brown is qualified for SC.
She is fully qualified.
She is black.
She is a woman. (even if she doesn't know what that is)
Q.E.D.
You are a biologist?
Even better, he’s a MARINE biologist!
Gotta check the flow dynamics of those deep ocean motions.
Ewwww
Semper Fi!
Did I say that anywhere in the article?
is implied because the true matter is whether she's qualified not whether Ted is a nut
She’s not. This is a shit article. I would offer to write for this rag, but I doubt the pay is worth a shit.
and fwiw I'd public criminal defend before I'd take money to criminal defend.
In these here comments, it's all about what you don't say.
So if you write an article about, say, Elon Musk offering Twitter users an edit button (hint hint hint) they'll say you support Joe Biden because you're not talking about Hunter's laptop.
See?
Ideas!
Ideas!
but he's an unserious person using his perch in the U.S. Senate to get on the TV and spout unserious arguments. It's an embarrassment.
Yup.
Most of KJBs were nonsensical. Of course reason had 4 articles defending child porn sentences, none on her belief in no natural rights, none on not defining a woman, none on lying about knowing about CRT.
CJ, what you choose to focus on and ignore is just as telling as anything else.
This. It's the dog that didn't bark. Especially her 'inability' to support the concept of natural rights.
If you do not believe that rights are intrinsic to the person then you are - definitionally - some manner of statist.
How come you chose this one single statement and not any of the nutty statements from the democrat senators CJ? The topics reason chooses to write about are very telling.
He’s a hack. I hope he comes down to this thread too. I’ve been dying to get into it with one of the Reason staff for years.
No, but almost all coverage of this confirmation hearing by Reason has been about how horrible Republican senators are, while ignoring her actual record. Except for the pro-pedophilia record.
Shouldn’t a supposed libertarian publication be a bit concerned that a Supreme Court nominee doesn’t believe in natural rights? Nah, Cruz acting like a politician on a talk show is more important.
You also wrote this "we could also conclude that Cruz has a natural inclination toward banning dildos, since he argued in favor of Texas' ban on sales of sex toys when he was the state solicitor general." Are you implying Jackson Brown's a dildo?
Did I say that anywhere in the article?"
You certainly implied it.
She's qualified because there are literally zero qualifications necessary to be appointed to the court. You don't have to be a lawyer. She's been a lawyer and a judge and therefore has more than the necessary (zero) qualifications.
You can like or dislike her, that's up to you.
It also doesn't excuse the sheer idiocy of what Ted Cruz said, and the problem of implying all public defenders are of questionable moral character. It's shitty and it's the sort of the thing he really should walk back or apologize for saying. But maybe he really means it, which would be just as bad.
"The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel to make sure everyone—the unpopular, the poor, and yes, even the guilty—has the benefit of a dogged defense against the government's power to relieve them of their liberty and property."
Unless, or course, they are relieved of their property without being arrested or charged with anything.
The explicit point of asset forfeiture is to prevent people who got their money through illegal means to use that money to defend themselves in court. Guilty until proven guilty.
Even if there is no court case to defend.
Kafka, or MC Escher?
The explicit, intended use for it was to deprive kingpins the ability to hire a defense attorney, putting them at the mercy of public pretenders.
In practice it's literal highway robbery.
The government must conscript / enslave a lawyer to defend you if you can't afford one.
On the positive side, that lawyer will get paid something whether you wind up in jail or not.
Crazy has a point, it is not unlikely a public defender may have a difficulty being impartial instead of sympathetic towards a dependent when they are raised to the bench. Of course, the same can be said the opposite way for a judge who came from the prosecution side, which Cruz may have blinders about.
Their job is to be biased toward the defendant. They don't have the liberty of refusing to defend someone they don't like, so impartiality doesn't mean anything. It's the job of the prosecutor to be impartial and to represent both justice and the facts. It's the job of the defense attorney to give the best defense possible within the legal framework, regardless what the crime is. Poor and unpopular people still don't deserve to be railroaded-the prosecution has to prove its case.
And all Cruz did was point that out.
No, what Cruz did was say that public defenders definitely like criminals. What I said was that public defenders have to defend people they think are guilty just the same as if they believe in their innocence. They don't have to be "fair," or to make concessions, or start from a point of neutrality, they have to treat every defendant as if he's innocent.
It doesn't make them pro criminal. They can hope to god their client gets convicted and it still doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of providing a competent defense.
What Cruz said is that in his experience people drawn to public defender jobs are generally pro criminal (meaning: they look for extenuating circumstances in the background, explanations, etc. for criminal behavior), and they can get away with that because they are not required to be impartial, as you yourself point out. I fail to see any problem with Cruz's statement.
You have to be rather disconnected from reality if you think that the population of judges, district attorneys, and public defenders all have the same attitudes towards criminals.
It's the same old denial steps:
1. He lied/he's wrong. <- A Thinking Mind is here.
2. He's not wrong but it's not common.
3. It's so common that I'm doing it right now by defending her from his totally accurate statements.
In 2015 KBJ had an article about using concepts of CRT in the legal process. She is definitely biased. Full stop.
And I have no problems with pointing that out. She's in favor of race-based outcomes and I think, unlike Sullum, she exceeded judicial authority by reducing a defendant's sentence using a law Congress agreed would not be retroactive. She let a little black Pedophile out after 90 days because she felt really bad for him and thought the whole thing was unfair, and he, of course, reoffended.
And my problem with reason is they dedocate so much shit to conservative hate like this instead of focusing on this one justice.
We also have a recent flood of DA guidance actually beholden to the description Cruz gave in releasing criminals due to skin color and such despite their crimes. See the red suv free to kill despite multiple bail violations including assault.
It was badly worded on Cruz' part but it a widespread legal belief at this point. So outright dismissing it without analysis is silly.
The current Supreme Court nominere said there are no natural rights which to me is much more deserving of libertarian analysis than a one off comment by a senator.
I should add that in a review of this nomination their articles have been focused entirely on what a conservative said. From Hawley to Cruz. It is sad.
She isn't just "biased", she lied to Congress when she claimed not to be all that familiar with CRT and that it didn't come up in her legal decision making.
She shouldn’t be confirmed. And since she perjured herself, she should be impeached as a judge. Possibly prosecuted criminally too.
Cruz is making the knee-jerk presumption that everyone who's accused of a crime is guilty.
They can hope to god their client gets convicted and it still doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of providing a competent defense.
And this wasn't his point. His point was that KBJ is a bleeding heart the way ENB is a bleeding heart. Where, after the case is settled and the guilty convicted by their peers, they deserve leniency beyond what the law extends them.
they have to treat every defendant as if he's innocent
All they really have to do to provide a competent defense is assist their client in navigating the system correctly, i.e., know the law and file the correct paperwork at the appropriate time. The presumption of innocence is a mandate to the jury, not the attorneys.
No, the best interest of their client is a mandate to the defense attorney. You can't phone in a defense because you want your client convicted, that's a violation of ethical responsibilities. Even massive dirtbags need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense attorney is there to ensure that the government meets that burden.
You can't phone in a defense because you want your client convicted
I didn't even imply that.
The best interest of a client who is guilty and is honest with their attorney about that is the lightest sentence allowed for their crime. The idea that an attorney has any duty to a client that is lying to them about their guilt other than to make sure all the proper forms are observed is ludicrous. As you said, the ethical obligation is fulfilled if they "ensure the government meets that burden."
I don't think we disagree on anything. I am just not pretending that defense attorneys who knowingly allow their clients to lie are not themselves massive scumbags.
The religious subtext of your argument is noted.
And all Cruz did was point that out
That wasn't even his point. He wasn't criticizing her for having a bleeding heart as a defense lawyer, he was criticizing her for bringing it to the bench, where she's supposed to be impartial.
Cariamella is as much a lying shitbag as any of the rest of them. If the only person at the scene of the murder said, "I was me. I did it. I had an affair with her and had to kill her because my husband couldn't find out." they'd report the facts as "Husband forced wife to kill lesbian lover."
No, they'd report "husband kills close confidant of wife"
"husband, who is a Trump supporter, kills close confidant of wife"
Of course, the same can be said the opposite way for a judge who came from the prosecution side, which Cruz may have blinders about.
Stop eating Reason's shit. He explicitly makes the point that some public defenders are as adamant about getting guilty people off as prosecutors are about jailing innocent people. Then, in the next sentence, goes on to say that she brings much of that to the bench.
It's as bad as the time Cruz said he opposed Trump's Liberal, New-York-City-Democrat values. And Sullum, in the throes of Hillarymania and convinced Trump wouldn't win the nomination wrote, "Cruz Comes Out Against Liberal Democratic Values".
He explicitly makes the point that some public defenders are as adamant about getting guilty people off as prosecutors are about jailing innocent people.
This not what he said. He said prosecutors want to lock "bad guys," up, but that Public Defenders have their hearts on the side of murderers and criminals. He's clearly casting one of those things as morally righteous in comparison to the other. He didn't say anything about prosecutors wanting to lock up innocent people.
He said prosecutors want to lock "bad guys," up, but that Public Defenders have their hearts on the side of murderers and criminals. He's clearly casting one of those things as morally righteous in comparison to the other.
Do we put people in prison just for being bad (guys) or do we put them in prison for being murderers and criminals? Moreover, why do you assume he was speaking to the facts of any specific case rather than just a prosecutor or defenders pre-conceived motivations before the enter the court room, take the case, or maybe even enter law school.
Ted Cruz was not talking about the broad biases of Public Defenders toward the individuals compared to the Prosecutors bias of the state interest. He wasn't expressing himself in those terms. I went to watch the whole interview so I could get context. I understand he wanted to make a point about KBJ bringing a bias to the bench, but the words he used were "Public defenders hearts are with the murderers and criminals, that's who their rooting for."
He didn't say "They're in favor of defendants," or biased toward innocence. He puts them on the side of bad guys, and prosecutors on the side against bad guys. It's a really shitty statement because there's no "bad guys," there's only the guilty and the innocent. And there's nothing even slightly wrong with being biased toward defendants because our legal system is SUPPOSED to be biased toward defendants.
KJB might be a bad judge for showing excessive bias toward defendants even after their guilt has been proven. The only people she sentences, after all, are guilty people, so she should have a requirement to be neutral. But that doesn't mean all public defenders or even most public defenders like murderers and like criminals, that's a pretty insane thing for Ted Cruz to imply.
And you should know that I'm often here to fact-check and point out that the framing is full of shit, but this time Ted Cruz really stepped in it and I'm calling him the fuck out. He should not have said this.
You said above:
And if Cruz wasn't intending to smear all public defenders, this is one of those situations he really needs to clarify because the words were definitely a smear.
The only way this is true is if you assume public defenders are susceptible to this behavior (and, arguably, prosecutors aren't susceptible to the zealousness he alludes to) or that, he otherwise wasn't talking specifically about KBJ.
Even then, if you assume he wasn't talking about KBJ, he tarts off with "we've all known defenders", indicating he's not tallking about all defenders, he's talking about just overzealous ones and prosecutors.
Seriously, you're defending Cruz for not liking a pedophile. Willfully ignoring his plain language in her defense.
"Do we put people in prison just for being bad (guys) or do we put them in prison for being murderers and criminals?"
Sometimes we put people in prison for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because their name is similar to a murderer or criminal.
Right. It was an exceedingly 'both sides' statement, and not even a very stinging one for the attorneys, that A Thinking Mind Cruz needs to apologize for.
Imagine Rand Paul saying some ocular surgeons like some other specialists are overzealous about their medical specialty and they, the nominee in particular, need to leave that behind when it comes to adjudicating the law. And then retards like ATM say "Paul should apologize for insulting ocular surgeons like that."
Imagine if Rand Paul said that oncologists are in favor of cancer. That's basically what Ted Cruz said.
I like Ted Cruz when he doesn't have his head up his ass. I think this was very shitty of him to say.
Imagine if Rand Paul said that oncologists are in favor of cancer.
Are
criminalsbad guys not human to you? That's an awful long way to go just to demand an apology of Ted Cruz. Almost like you're being a fanatical shitbag about the issue.He said that, though. They even quoted it.
"And you and I have both known public defenders. People go and do that because their heart is with criminal defendants. Their heart is with the murderers, the criminals, and that that's who they're rooting for. A lot of the same reasons people go and become prosecutors—because they want to lock up bad guys—public defenders often have a natural inclination in the direction of the criminal. And I gotta say that inclination was not just while she was a public defender, but she carried it onto the bench."
Meanwhile...
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1511387956648583169?t=fO5Ub4xxZIUjLWrqSfgRyQ&s=19
I will try not to swear with abandon as I explain what happened in DC District Court today.
Ethan Nordean has been in jail for 14 months. He is not charged with any violent crime related to Jan 6--he didn't assault anyone or carry a weapon. His only "crime" is being a Proud Boy
Judge Timothy Kelly--A TRUMP APPOINTEE--has denied release for Nordean and other Proud Boys also not charged with crimes of violence.
(His contact information is here)
Today, Judge Kelly...
ONCE AGAIN caved to this abusive DOJ and VACATED Nordean's May 18 trial date.
Why?
Because DOJ AGAIN admits it doesn't have all its evidence ready--15 MONTHS AFTER THE FBI STARTED ARRESTING AMERICANS FOR JANUARY 6.
As I noted the other day, defendants have no choice but to...
concur bc attorneys haven't seen all evidence incl exculpatory evidence to defend their clients.
LOOK AT THIS: @USAO_DC doesn't want Judge Kelly to be "distracted" by the fact Nordean and his co-defendants have BEEN IN JAIL FOR OVER A YEAR WITHOUT BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME:
Here is Matthew Graves, a Biden campaign advisor whose wife is a leftwing activist in DC, mocking their ongoing detention status and, of course, the law.
Everyone shut your f*cking piehole about Putin.
Political prisoners.
[Links]
More of this coming if we allow the continued existence of the democrat party.
Local story
Hey CJ, this might be the kind of story a REAL fucking Libertarian would cover. Seriously dude.
Somebody who purports to be so deeply concerned about due process should explain why he hasn't seen fit to address this.
Hey CJ Carimella,
I think it was before your time, so you probably don't remember when Jacob Sullum helping to get Trump elected by saying, "Ted Cruz Comes Out Against Liberal Democratic Values"
Anyway, because he was stupid and disingenuous enough to say that, I'm not reading your stupid, disingenuous article.
Tell Sullum To Go Fuck Himself,
mad.casual
I assumed it was a Sullum article from the title.
Same.
You have to be a hate filled leftist demagogue to read that into Cruz's statement.
Ciaramelli: you are an embarrassment to the journalistic profession and the US educational system.
"People go and do that because their heart is with criminal defendants. Their heart is with the murderers, the criminals, and that that's who they're rooting for."
So this quote from Cruz was ... what? Because it sure sounds like a smear, a gross generalization, and baselessly judging hundreds of thousands of people.
I don't see how it is a "smear": it's just a statement about the psychology of people who choose to become public defenders. They are great at their jobs, it's they kind of psychology you want in public defenders. Such people simply shouldn't be appointed to SCOTUS.
And, yes, it is a generalization. There is nothing wrong with generalizations. But in this case, it's not just a generalization, KJB fits the stereotype based on her actual judgments.
KJB has zero business being a judge of any kind.
"'During his Fox News appearance on Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) said that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson and other public defenders root for criminals because "their heart is with the murderers."'
In every county (admittedly small counties) in which I have lived, while there as sometimes a "public defender," more often that not, there is simply an office -- the "public defenders" themselves are simply local lawyers assigned to the case by the judge.
It works differently at the federal level.
It works differently depending on the locality. There's some localities where the public defenders are essentially privatized, and there's some where there's a rotating pool. In most bigger cities there's an actual office of public defenders.
Golly, gee, you don't say! And the kind of people who work there are the kind of people Cruz was referring to.
This may come as a shock to Cruz, but a lawyer, whether a prosecutor or a public defender, is not supposed to have their heart anywhere. Their sole purpose is justice, not social work, not defending the culture, not avenging the victims.
Justice requires going with the facts and the law, not with your heart.
That actually happens when, exactly?
It doesn't happen nearly enough, but people like Cruz won't make it happen any more often.
This may come to a shock to you but Reason's reporting is biased to the point of absurdity. This was exactly Cruz' point. Public defenders (and prosecutors) are supposed to be neutral but sometimes get zealous, that's entirely not wrong until, as with KBJ, they bring it to the bench, where they are supposed to be unequivocally neutral.
"Public defenders (and prosecutors) are supposed to be neutral "
Just public defenders? I can't imagine hiring a defender who claimed s/he was 'supposed to be neutral.' Sounds like you're spouting nonsense.
You do realize Cruz was characterizing the Biden nominee and her (?) Take, right? By your characterization she's unfit because she advocated for criminals from both the defenders office (fine) and the bench (not good).
So what's your point?
You are an absolute idiot.
What the hell is going on with my libertarian source? You guys are just jumping in the partisan hackery as a bunch of left wing Democrats.... Plus Robby and The Jacket.
You really think grilling a supreme court justice and trying to drive up her negatives is a position paper? What an idiot.
None of the Republican nominees ever got this fair of a hearing... Where were you then?
I agree, this is mostly a stupid line of questioning, but then so is the "defense attorney means she is going to be great for libertarians" position.
She was chosen because she is black, female, young, has a clean record and she is reliably progressive and democrat.
Nothing in there bodes well for your freedoms. Just look at the las set this crowd put forward.
Kagan is a straight partisan hack. Sotomayor is a little more reliably ideology driven, but of the left with lots of extra-constitutional ideas.
And then there is Garland, the would be nominee. He has clearly demonstrated that he has absolutely no respect for the law, due process, privacy, or even guilt or innocence. He has happily used the power of the state for partisan political purposes....
But we should take it on faith that this nominee is totally fine and need not be opposed?
What is that? Fool me 7 times... Well, just don't do it again, please?
If public defenders are purely unbiased, why would it be good to have one as a Supreme Court Justice. Reason has made the case they need their views, but inherently implies a bias they are now castigated Cruz of having stated.
I agree, this is mostly a stupid line of questioning, but then so is the "defense attorney means she is going to be great for libertarians" position.
Since I trotted out one old hit, might as well trot out some others: here's ENB to serve as a case in point. Who cares if a woman drowned her 3 yr. old son and claimed God told her to or that a serial thief got caught literally with his hand in a woman's purse... on her nightstand... by her husband, or that the rapist had a history of raping infirm old women, none of that matters because the prosecutor might be cheating with a married woman!
If that's your take on libertarianism, libertarianism would be better served by you bludgeoning yourself with a hammer.
It is a good idea to have a former defense attorney on the court, but not just any defense attorney. One who is either incapable, or unwilling, to define "woman" is likely to be concealing an agenda that is profoundly anti-individualist.
At a time when public schools are promoting the idea that a 14 year old girl, who is not allowed the decision to drive a car, smoke a cigarette, have a beer or own a firearm, is somehow competent to decide to be shot full of testosterone and have her tits cut off, there should not be a single person on the Supreme Court who cannot define "woman".
14 is an old hag. Gotta get 'em fresh for the CRT mills.
Reason is all in for the paedophiles, huh?
This publication has gone to absolute leftist shit. The only good part is watching your bullshit get eviscerated daily in the comments.
No, it's criticizing Republicans, who as far as anyone knows, are the only party to elect a convicted pedophile as speaker of the house for a decade and elect a known daughter-fucker as president.
a known daughter-fucker as president.
I was a known daughter fucker up until my wife had our first kid, then I became a known motherfucker.
"and elect a known daughter-fucker as president."
What?
I think he means Biden, but that's his niece.
You mean democrats. Democrats elected Biden, who molested his daughter Ashley. According to her authenticated diary.
Not just Ted, all Republicans hate due process.
Cite?
Not just the red team. Democrats hate due process too. All you have to do is look at red flag laws and the 'I had a bad date / drank too much' Title IX rules.
Yep. Neither side is friendly to due process. Or free speech for that matter.
"Whether state attorney generals are ethically bound to defend..."
it's "attorneys general".
I liked Republicans better when they were pretending to be for small government. Of course it was always 100% bullshit, but at least you could call them out for their many hypocrisies.
Now they've simply chosen to abandon all that and embrace the ideology of using state power to settle petty cultural disputes and (in a nice throwback) continue locking up vulnerable people for doing the wrong sorts of drugs.
I don't blame Trump alone, but he was surely a fat, orange catalyst. He gave Republican voters permission to be the vile assholes they always were inside, in public.
Oh, thank you fucktards for that.
There's a shitload of projection in there, Tony.
Tony, you’re am evil, despicable soulless thing. You should be given a short trial and then put down. The end.
I really wonder what damage there is to your brain that you can describe the Democratic Party every day, yet call them Republicans.
Being a public defender is a noble profession, even if most of the people you defend are not.
Being a judge who goes easy on sentencing people that most of society wants to be protected from is not.
At this point, I can't figure out if the Reason staff are just drooling morons or if they think we are. There are two propositions:
1. Public defenders are duty bound to provide a vigorous and thorough defense of their clients in a court of law.
2. The role of public defender is one inclined to attract and retain people fundamentally soft on crime,
Both propositions can be completely true and a rational person can believe both. There's no contradiction whatsoever between the two. It's absolutely obvious that Cruz is arguing the latter proposition. And yet Ciaramella is attempting to conflate this with a rejection of the former proposition. I'd say it was utterly dishonest, if I could say with greater certainty that Ciaramella was himself bright enough to identify the distinction.
While a rejection of the former proposition would rightly be considered demagoguery, there's nothing wrong with making the case for the latter. Especially in the context of considering a candidate for judgeship where the candidate is expected to impartially interpret the law independent of one's views on crime. And especially where that candidate's record as a judge is consistent with an interpretation that they're, in fact, soft on crime.
We're not stupid, C.J. Stop treating us like we are.
Considering the totality of Reason’s coverage of this nomination, I’d lean towards dishonest over stupid.
Of course it can be both.
Like a lot of beltway assholes, I suspect the Reasons prioritize being liked over being honest.
Yeah, I get it. The good lawer could turn a jerk to be a good guy. Here
I knew Cruz was a clown, somehow I didn't realize he was this much of one though.
Whose sockpuppet are you?
No one's. This is the only account I've used to post on this site.
I believe you.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
I knew the democrats were a bunch of worthless, shitweasel, Marxist assholes. So?
Just to be clear I'm not a fan of the Democrats either.
Of course you can find stupid statements by Republicans, they're the Stupid Party, after all.
They're also all that stands between Jackson and a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
In principle, I'd love more public defenders on the Court, though I'd also prefer people who defend the admittedly innocent - that is, babies in the womb.
And if we're getting all sentimental about the need for lawyers to represent the vulnerable - remember that Reason backed the ACLU in trying to strip unborn children in Alabama of the right to an attorney against the teen moms who wanted to kill them.
Except there is no such thing as "unborn children". There are fetuses that, after birth, become children.
Why do cultural conservatives hate liberty?
Radical opinions on one side will promote radial opinions on the other side. That is no surprise. What is wrong is a media outlet, publication or website harping on one sides radical views while ignoring the other sides transgressions.
Reason is sure guilty of that.
That's right, folks. Time to rally around Team Red.
By (lying) smearing the Texas senator (who never said he hated due process), C.J. shows what he thinks of Senator Cruz being able to question a Supreme Court about her judgement bias.
So the flip side is if Cruz opines he admires public defenders that must mean he loves due process? Logically, it's beyond stupid to think, much less put that in writing and believe that a man's opinion about due process is directly correlated to how he feels about public defenders in general.
“People go and do that because their heart is with criminal defendants.” & “the right to counsel to make sure everyone... has the benefit of a dogged defense against the government's power to relieve them of their liberty and property.” Are not mutually exclusive.
The majority of ADA's I've known chose to be prosecutors for the political or private practice boost, not to “fight crime”. While the majority of PD's I've known chose that path, not because “everyone deserves a strong defense”, but because they believe the defendants are the real victims.
Let's demonize Cruz because... he sends mean tweets. And you know how well that has worked out for us.
CB
ted was 100% correct in what he said. the democrats are the party of death and always protect the criminals & perverts. he did not say the the accused don't deserve a defense. the left believes that the prisons should be emptied and sentences lowered for everything. jackson said during the pandemic that she wished she could release every prisoner from jail/prison. yes ted was right and the evidence to support his assertion is everywhere.
When you're a jet you're a jet all the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9z33lasnkU
I hope C.J. gets the dosage of Midol he so desperately needs, because nothing that Senator Cruz said can be construed as being against due process. Not in the least. Cruz was talking about what he believes about the inclinations of criminal defense lawyers towards their client base. He didn't say that criminal defendants shouldn't have lawyers or that they shouldn't get fair trials.
Unlike what many Democrat politicians have said about Trump, Trump administration officials and Republicans in general.
Ted Cruz certainly believes in due process. That said, the MAGA character he is playing currently, cannot believe in due process. I once had admiration for Cruz, but he's just a shill that has sold out to MAGA and kissing Trump and his followers asses.
Right; I mean who dare wants to Make America Great Again... /s
What a sell out... /s Heaven forbid anyone respect Trump for his De-Regulation....
The USA must be destroyed for Nazism... /s
You TDS addled psychopaths need to move out of America...
Many other nations flirt with your Nazism far better than America; so far.
By "criminal" Lyin' Ted means those who sell a desired good or service to adults willing and able to pay for it. Ted is of the looter Kleptocracy mindset to which bribery and hatred determine who altruistic initiation of force will target.
Lyin' Ted just lost the Televangelists-only Supreme Court. Je je je.
moar bold!