‘We won!’ Watch Ted Cruz brag about defeating a homeless atheist man in court

[rug]

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Eric W. Dolan
22 May 2015 at 13:05 ET

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Thursday bragged that he had defeated a homeless atheist man in court while serving as solicitor general in Texas — a story he enjoys recalling in front of religious audiences.

“What I want to talk to you about this morning is… religious liberty,” the Republican presidential candidate said during the Family Research Council’s Watchmen on the Wall event. “Religious liberty is the foundational liberty upon which this nation was built.”

“You know, I’ve been blessed to have the opportunity to stand and fight for religious liberty over and over again for the past two decades,” Cruz continued. “Before I was in the Senate I was the solicitor general of Texas, the chief lawyer for the state in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“We defended the Texas Ten Commandments monument, [which] stands on the State Capitol grounds until an atheist — a homeless man — came along and sued the state, saying it offended him to gaze upon the Ten Commandments. We defended the Ten Commandments, we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, defending the Ten Commandments, and we won.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/we-won-watch-ted-cruz-brag-about-defeating-homeless-atheist-man-in-court/

What a revolting piece of shit.

[okasha]

1. In case anybody still doesn't know

what plain evil looks like. there's its portrait.

[cbayer]

2. He is despicable.

The way he spits out "atheist" and "homeless" makes my stomach turn.

These are times when hoping that there is karma is the only satisfaction one ca get.

[Jim__]

3. According to wikipedia, he didn't argue the case before the SC.

From wikipedia (my bolding):

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In a suit brought by Thomas Van Orden of Austin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in November 2003 that the displays were constitutional, on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message. Van Orden appealed, and in October 2004 the high court agreed to hear the case at the same time as it heard McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county courthouses in Kentucky.

The appeal of the 5th Circuit's decision was argued by Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and the Alston & Bird Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law, who represented Van Orden on a pro bono basis. Texas' case was argued by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. An amicus curiae was presented on behalf of the respondents (the state of Texas) by then-Solicitor General Paul Clement.

The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the plurality opinion of the Court; Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. The similar case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was handed down the same day with the opposite result (also with a 5 to 4 decision). The "swing vote" in both cases was Breyer.

Maybe he was the Solicitor General at the beginning of the case, but, apparently, not when it went before the Supreme Court. Or, wikipedia could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time. Maybe Cruz just doesn't have a lot else to brag about.

[rug]

4. Hah! Good catch.

What a bullshitting, revolting piece of shit.

[Jim__]

5. Paul Clement was the US Solicitor General.

Cruz was the Texas Solicitor General, but he didn't argue the case before the SC.

[struggle4progress]

6. "And I nearly won another fight, too, until

the old lady started hitting me with her crutch!"

[okasha]

7. ....