Sen. Ted Cruz emphasized the importance of appointing Supreme Court justices who are loyal to the Constitution, instead of who aim "to be popular at the cocktail parties" during a Sunday Fox News interview on "Life, Liberty, and Levin."
Cruz reasoned that Republican nominees veered leftward after being appointed in order to become well-liked in D.C. social circles.
“All of the social pressure on justices is to move to the left. You go to cocktail parties, you’re praised. You know, as you know, the former New York Times Supreme Court reporter was a woman named Linda Greenhouse, and there was something referred to as the 'Greenhouse Effect,' which is justices like Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor would move left because when they did, Linda Greenhouse would praise them in the pages of The New York Times and they wanted to be popular at the cocktail parties," the senator noted to conservative host Mark Levin.
Cruz suggested that the best way to ensure that Republican nominees do not turn out to be left-wing sellouts is to choose individuals who have “been through the fire" of critical publicity.
A full transcript of the segment is below:
Sen. Ted Cruz: Many of the worst judicial activists were Republican appointees. Earl Warren, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade was a Republican nominee, and there is a reason for that. Look, a lot of people are frustrated and they are like, "well, why do we keep getting it wrong?" And so I try, in the book, to analyze, well, what’s the difference? When do we get it right? When do we get it wrong? If you look at the justices who stayed faithful to their oath, who stayed faithful to the Constitution, giants like Antonin Scalia, like Clarence Thomas, like Sam Alito, like my former boss, Chief Justice William Rhenquist, every one of them had a similar pattern. Every one of them had served in the executive. Every one of them had long championed conservative principles, Constitutional principles, and critically, every one of them had been excoriated in the press. They'd been pounded in the press and they hadn't wavered. That’s actually what I look for the most. Do you have a proven record and have you been through the fire?
On the other hand, where Republicans get it wrong is when they nominate a stealth candidate, when they nominate a candidate who doesn't have a record, who’s avoided controversy, who hasn't been criticized, but someone says, "hey, hey, trust me, they’ll be great.” And over and over and over again, it turns out to be a disaster when we follow that pattern. And so I think there is a great virtue to nominating people with proven records. Look, I’ll give an example, a Mark Levin Supreme Court justice. I have no doubt you would follow the Constitution no matter what. And why do I know that? Because you’ve endured the fire and you don’t give a d*** if The New York Times is praising you or not. I also said in my book, I want a Supreme Court justice that doesn't want to go to D.C. cocktail parties, that all of the social pressure on justices is to move to the left. You go to cocktail parties, you’re praised. You know, as you know, the former New York Times Supreme Court reporter was a woman named Linda Greenhouse, and there was something referred to as the "Greenhouse Effect," which is justices like Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor would move left because when they did, Linda Greenhouse would praise them in the pages of The New York Times and they wanted to be popular at the cocktail parties. They wanted the press to say nice things about them and it's destructive to the rule of law. We need justices whose allegiance is to the Constitution and not to whatever The New York Times or The Washington Post has to say about them.
Alexander Watson is a CNSNews intern and Christendom College graduate.