Ted Cruz Stands By His Claim That Harvard Law Was Crawling With Pinkos

Categories: Politics

Thumbnail image for ted cruz.jpg
It's an impressive feat to show up in The New Yorker as a freshman Congressman, and kudos to Senator Ted Cruz for pulling it off. Cruz has been facing widespread criticism for, among other things, his aggressive questioning of Chuck Hagel, President Obama's nominee for Defense Secretary. Jane Mayer joined in last week by reporting on Cruz's attempts to bring back the Red Scare.

At a 2010 Fourth of July-weekend rally in Austin sponsored by Americans For Prosperity, Cruz described the ideological makeup of the Harvard Law School faculty when he was a student: "There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government."

Cruz attended Harvard Law from 1992 to 1995, and as Mayer reports most reps from Harvard aren't sure where he got his numbers. A spokesman for the school called it "puzzling."

Charles Fried, a solicitor general under Ronald Reagan who taught Cruz at Harvard, says, "I can right offhand count four 'out' Republicans (including myself), and I don't know how many closeted Republicans when Ted, who was my student and the editor on the Harvard Law Review who helped me with my Supreme Court foreword, was a student here."

But Senator Cruz was good enough to clear everything up on The Blaze via spokesperson Catherine Frazier. The explanation: Harvard was full of Commies and why are you asking?

"It's curious that the New Yorker would dredge up a three-year-old speech and call it 'news,'" Frazier said in a statement to TheBlaze late Friday. "Regardless, Senator Cruz's substantive point was absolutely correct: in the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of 'critical legal studies' -- a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism - and they far outnumbered Republicans."

To be clear, The New Yorker isn't calling it breaking news. They're saying that in light of Cruz's questions and insinuations with Hagel (e.g. that Hagel's nomination was "publicly celebrated by the Iranian government" which was rated "Pants on Fire" by PolitiFact) it's probably worth taking a look at how loose he's been historically with his political accusations.

My Voice Nation Help
61 comments
epicmale
epicmale

When the lieberals are squealing like a pig caught under a gate, you know Cruz is doing the right thing!

Fred_Dorfman76
Fred_Dorfman76

Doesn't suprise me.  The guy would be a fringe candidate in any other state.  But the right wing knuckledraggers who infest this state will continue to elect nutjobs like Cruz who make Texas a punchline.  Another reason why no Texas rupublican should be taken seriously in any rational debate.

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

Cruz is a great guy.  He doesn't bow and scrape to the Washington establishment.  Liberals don't like him which means he's a good guy for Texas.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Bremarks
Bremarks

Texas's version of Senator Joe McCarthy.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

gee, not too hard to understand Cruz's perspective. After all, there aren't many, perhaps about .0001%, who are as far to the right as he seems to be. From his vantage point EVERYONE is a leftist, and the vast majority (who normal folks might call centrist or futher to the left) are RADICAL leftist!

roo_ster
roo_ster

I could not tell you the exact ideological breakdown of my alma mater, but it is safe to say the marxists much outnumbered any conservatives.

Guesty
Guesty

Cruz is a nut.  He sees conspiracies in every shadow.  And he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a commie piko.  He is the worst sort of pseudo intellectual: One who is willing to simply make up or ignore facts.  

Here, he is simply conflating Marx's economic ideas and Marx's sociological ideas.  It is true that critical legal studies are related to, if not derived from, Marx's sociological theories.  But endorsing critical legal studies does not even remotely suggest that you are a communist.  

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Ted Cruz is well on his way to being OOPS 2............

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

"Positive Law" theory is associated with Marxism (http://tinyurl.com/azgeoav).  The difference between Positive Law v Negative Law interpretation of our Constitution is that under Positive Law, the Constitution is a "grantor of rights and liberties" while under a Negative Law interpretation, laws may only limit rights and freedoms that accrue naturally to all men and women (rights we innately have).  Big difference.

Candidate Obama is a proponent of Positive Law interpretation and it is his vehicle to transform governance.  He talks about this theory in an interview on Chicago Public Radio here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCNK7v3J6w

He is a Redistributionist. Positive Law is the vehicle for that.  He employs Marxism to deliver redistribution.


animas
animas

So.... why are Marxists afraid of being Marxists? Just curious.

zhorsh
zhorsh

@epicmale When Cruz was publicly spanked for this crap slime by McCain and several other republican Senators he clammed up like a petulant little kid he really is and wet his panties in fear of going to far with his Bosses in attendance.

Just a Woose!

graham57
graham57

Just because people that you don't care for don't like him doesn't necessarily mean that he is right. It could simply mean that he is a bloviating jerk. 

animas
animas

I am suprised to learn that Ted is midwestern, drinks too much and dated Ethel Kennedy's sister... The estimable NYT had to dig into 3-4 years of data to piece together this "evidence"(lol).  Sounds more McCathyesque than Old Joe himself! 

zhorsh
zhorsh

@Guesty I disagree - Whenever Cruz is called out he RESORTS to that safe place for him - The Commies are after me!

He is a JOKE, a dangerous JOKE

graham57
graham57

@Guesty If I thought that Ted Cruz knew the correct meaning of the words "Marxist" and "Communist" I would be more inclined to take him seriously. Since, like most authoritarian hand-wavers in the modern USA, he has no frigging clue, I will simply tune out his verbal wankery. 

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@Guesty Correct.  Cruz is what they used to call an anti-intellectual.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were in favor of book burning.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@holmantx if Obama is a redistributionist, it's as a crony capitalist.  Otherwise your charge is meritless. 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

first, the accusation from Cruz's staff is in regard to "critical legal theory", which is not the same as "positive law".

second, the legal concepts of "positive law" and "natural law" predate marxism by close to a millenia. the philosophers who wrote extensively on the subject predate marxism by several centuries. "positive law" is not in any way connected to marxist theories.

third, critical legal theory does incorporate the idea that class (and other social positions) influence the administration of law, and the outcomes of legal cases. that in itself may share some viewpoints of karl marx; however that does not in any way equate CLS with "marxism", which is not a legal concept but rather an economic theory, which of course is what the phrases "marxism" and "communism" and "redistribution" are germaine to.

epicmale
epicmale

@hasanmary @epicmale And what might be your life accomplishments, Hasan?  LOL...  You are a mere flyspeck on the wall that needs scraping off.  Strange how handily he won the election, which sort of blows up your 'embarassment' contention.  Good try though, Hasan.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@graham57

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

-- Johnathon Swift

j.walter.miller
j.walter.miller

@graham57 If you knew anything about Ted Cruz you'd know he's neither a jerk nor does he bloviate.

dalmom
dalmom

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @Guesty most who are anti-intellectual don't choose to attend Princeton and Harvard.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@scottindallas @holmantx I'll write that down along with whoosh the wonder dog and use it for for continuing education credit.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog I did not assert Marx invented it however, he relied upon Positive Law to exert control and redistribute, as does the President.

Guesty
Guesty

@j.walter.miller @graham57 I know several people who are of a similar political persuasion as Cruz who know him personally and think he's a jerk.  Have you met the guy?  He is far more impressed with himself than anyone has any right to be.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@j.walter.miller

kryptonite. how appropriate.

an imaginary element that doesn't exist used to describe a person who imagines and believes things that don't exist.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@j.walter.miller

having been to a couple of cruz campaign appearances, watching cruz in the debates against dewhurst and sadler, and reading his questioning/pontificating during the nomination hearings, yes, cruz has shown himself to not only be a jerk but also guilty of blovating.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

@dalmom 

Sure they do. They're not "anti-intellectual" in the sense that they shouldn't be educated, after all, they have the right disposition and the correct ideas - all tempered with sincere faith and solid patriotism.

They just don't believe that higher learning is necessary or even good for the hoi-polloi. In fact, when the wrong types of people get educated, they might just turn up as a *gasp* liberals!

epicmale
epicmale

@holmantx I might also point out that Marx was a bum, always begging for money from those that actually worked for a living.  He was a bum, who wanted to redistribute the wealth TO HIMSELF!  LOL...  And that is the basis of Marxism.  It appeals to the childish ego who believes that they are the center of the universe and deserve all that others have built and made.  And they are always surprised when those with more intellect wrest control from them and turn their 'pure' marxism into a deadly, tyrannical, dictatorship.  It happens every time.  Fools can never learn from the mistakes of others, much less their own mistakes.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog he wrote positive ROMAN law, the basis of Positive Law. lex humana versus lex posita

the rest, you are being obtuse

graham57
graham57

@holmantx @mavdog You keep recycling your assertion that the POTUS is a redistributionist. Where's your evidence?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

whaaat? wow, karl marx actually wrote the words "positive law"! apparently you believe if he wrote the words, then they are associated with and are the basis of his philosophies!

clearly you do NOT understand the concepts of positive law and natural law outlined above. no, not one bit....totally over your head. whoosh!

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@mavdog

no it's not, and - 

Marx was born at Treves on May 5, 18 18. His father was a lawyer.  In the autumn of 1836, Marx went to the University of Berlin. Marx chose jurisprudence as a special topic of study, regarding it, however, “merely as a subordinate discipline compared with philosophy and history.” In a letter to his father-a letter penned with a feverish brain, and characterized by ecstatic outbursts of feeling-we find evidence of his mental condition at the time.

Berlin, November 10, 1837. “Dear Father,

“There are moments in life which are placed like boundary stones to mark the close of a period, but which at the same time definitely point in a new direction.

snip!

“As second part, there now followed the philosophy of law, this meaning, as I then saw the matter, the study of the development of ideas in positive Roman law, as if positive law in the development of its ideas (I do not mean in its purely final determinations) could be anything different from the configuration of the concept of law, which the first part ought to embrace!"

snip!

Now who does that sound like?  Marx may not have invented it, but he damn sure embraced it as a tool to develop his true loves - philosophy and history.

It is the enabling process which delivers Marxism (Redistribution), and where the President transforms our Bill of Rights into

a Bill of Needs.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@holmantx

"positive law" is what the legislatures follow almost every time they enact legislation.

any statute that is not formed from "natural law" is derived from "positive law".

positive law is neither liberal nor conservative, not capitalist nor marxist, and does not entail redistribution as a concept.

property rights for instance are derived from positive law, as there is no true basis in natural law for ownership of property. ownership of property is a man made concept. therefore, positive law is a basic leg/concept of capitalism, not marxism.

your continued attempts to associate marxism and positive law are fundamentally, inherently wrong.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...