We Have Ted Cruz's List: Harvard Law Really Is Littered with Communists

 

It turns out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was correct when he claimed Harvard Law School had significant numbers of what might reasonably be called "communists."

Anyone who knows the Ivy League knows the question shouldn't be, Who at Harvard is Marxist? but Who at Harvard isn't Marxist?
Cruz, a U.S. senator for almost two months now, made the offending statement in a speech almost three years ago.  He described Barack Obama as "the most radical" president "ever to occupy the Oval Office."

 

Obama "would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School" because "there were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than communists!" said Cruz. 
 

 

"There was one Republican. But there were 12 who would say they were Marxists who believed in the communists' overthrowing the United States government."

Dan McLaughlin, a law school classmate of Cruz, confirms that the senator "is absolutely right on the basic point here:  there were multiples more Marxists on the Harvard Law faculty at the time than open Republicans."

(snip)

Critical legal theory takes the neo-Marxist perspective that the law is concerned with power, not justice.  Because the law is a fraud perpetrated on the people, an oppressive tool of capitalism, imperialism, sexism, racism, and whatever other ism it is currently fashionable to attack, the legal system should be criticized endlessly as a means of tearing it down.  If you're a communist it's natural to embrace critical legal theory as a way of changing American society.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals eloquently describes critical legal studies (CLS) as "horse manure."

As I understand this so-called theory, the notion is that because legal rules don't mean much anyway, and judges can reach any result they wish by invoking the right incantation, they should engraft their own political philosophy onto the decision-making process and use their power to change the way our society works.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if "Crits" dominated the judiciary.  There would be no fixed rules.  The only certain criterion for decisions would be so-called social justice, whatever that might mean on a particular day.  As the judicial branch became an instrument of naked redistribution, Karl Marx would look up from his fiery torments and cheer as America degenerated into kleptocracy.

There are more than a few Harvard Law academics associated with critical legal studies.

Harvard has been ground zero for the CLS movement for decades, a fact Time acknowledged in 2005.  The magazine identified Harvard law professors Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Morton Horwitz, and Duncan M. Kennedy as "three of the best-known" CLS adherents.  (Kennedy is also a member of the far-left Democratic Socialists of America and the radical, pro-terrorist National Lawyers Guild.  Bernardine Dohrn, incidentally, used to be an organizer for the NLG.)

Other Crits on the Harvard faculty are Mark Tushnet and David W. Kennedy.  In a 1981 law review article titled "The Dilemmas of Liberal Constitutionalism," Tushnet wrote that if he were a judge he "would decide what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism."

Read the whole story...The American Thinker

See more great imagery at 22 Moon