David Brooks says Ted Cruz's policies and outlook exhibit brutalism, citing the Supreme Court case of a man who stole a calculator from Walmart in 1997.

Brooks summarizes the case:

In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.

Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.

Some justices were skeptical. “Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?” Justice Anthony Kennedy asked. The court system did finally let Haley out of prison, after six years.

Brooks draws the conclusion in the next paragraph that Cruz shows Pharisaism, an overzealous application of the letter of the law.  Sixteen years in jail is excessive.  It is odd that Cruz opted to press the case, without mercy.

Then comes James Taranto of the WSJ, who says Brooks "borked" Cruz (he explains the term in his piece).  Brooks wasn't honest about the results.

Taranto writes:

The tell -- what led us to think Brooks probably wasn’t shooting straight here -- is his unexplained segue from the skepticism of “some justices,” including Kennedy, to Haley’s release thanks to “the court system.” We inferred that Cruz had won the case, and we inferred correctly. The vote was 6-3, with Kennedy among the dissenters. The majority opinion was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and joined by, among others, Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

If arguing against Haley’s legal position “reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character,” what does deciding against it reveal about the character of O’Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer and the others in the majority? Don’t worry, there won’t be a test. The answer is nada; the question is rhetorical and demonstrates the falsity of Brooks’s premise.

So because the SCOTUS favored Cruz's prosecution of the case, Cruz is exonerated from his brutalism or his Pharisaism.  I agree that "brutalism" is the wrong word.  "Pitiless" or "merciless" would have been better.

However, Brooks is still right, and yes, SCOTUS was also guilty of an overzealous application of the letter of the law.  Brooks's point still stands: Cruz should have pressed for a release of the prisoner with time served.  Why did the SCOTUS hear the case in the first place?

The sad case confirms what scares me about Cruz.  He does come across as overzealous, as if he's on a Lone Mission from God to radically transform America in the next two years, if he were (improbably) to win the nomination in June and the election in November.  He certainly cannot build coalitions in Washington, which grownups must be able to do if they want to govern among two legislative bodies and the executive branch.  His Senate colleagues don't like him.  It's getting clearer that it all fits into a pattern.  Severe.  Scary.  Merciless.  Relentless.  Therefore, unelectable.

James Arlandson's website is Live as Free People, where he has posted articles about Cruz and Trump.