(CNN) - Retired Justice John Paul Stevens may have carved a mostly liberal record in his nearly 35 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, but he received high praise Wednesday from one of the most conservative members of Congress.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the 94-year-old Stevens one of the most effective and "dangerous" justices, and said he was lucky no longer having to face him on the bench.
Prior to his elected position, Cruz was an attorney who frequently argued before the high court, including an effective state government stint as Texas Solicitor General.
"It is a different position to be on this side of the dais, not having to answer questions from Justice Stevens,” said Cruz admiringly.
"Justice Stevens often disagreed with the position of my clients. And there was no justice whose questions were more incisive, more friendly and, frankly, more dangerous than Justice Stevens."
Dressed in his trademark bow tie, Stevens was there to give a prepared statement to the Senate Rules Committee, offering his thoughts on a controversial topic - campaign finance reform. Members of the judiciary, even retired justices, typically do not offer testimony on such divisive issues, but Stevens speaks with some experience.
He led the 2010 high court dissent when the conservative majority in the so-called Citizens United case eased long-standing restrictions on campaign spending by corporations, labor unions and certain non-profit advocacy groups.
In his prepared testimony, Stevens continued to criticize the court's conclusion that corporations deserve the same free speech rights in elections as individuals, saying, "While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech."
"Elections are contests between rival candidates for public office. Like rules that govern athletic contests or adversary litigation, those rules should create a level playing field," he added. "The interest in creating a level playing field justifies regulation of campaign speech that does not apply to speech about general issues that is not designed to affect the outcome of elections."
Democrats on the committee praised Stevens, with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, among those saying a host of recent court decisions on election money have helped "drown out" the voices of ordinary Americans unable to afford spending freely on politics.
But Republicans downplayed such concerns.
"Let's stop demonizing citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas. "Let's stop pretending more speech somehow threatens democracy."
The last time Stevens had appeared before the Senate was during his 1975 confirmation to the high court. He earned a reputation in his many years on the court as a soft-spoken gentleman justice, a trait that often masked a razor sharp intellect, and tactical skills on the bench to match.
"Always with a twinkle in his eye" said Cruz with a smile on his face, "he would ask a question: counsel, wouldn't you just agree with this small little thing– that if you said yes, would walk you down a road that would unravel the entire position of your case."
Stevens took no questions from the committee and was walking out the hearing when Cruz spoke, but appeared touched by the senator's remarks, and turned and nodded in his direction.
The committee's majority Democrats will soon introduce legislation to undo another high court decision released earlier this month, which eliminated so-called "aggregate" limits on how much money people can donate in total in one election season.
That ruling means a wealthy liberal or conservative donor can give as much money as desired to federal election candidates across the country, as long as no candidate receives more than the current $5,200 cap.
While most people lack the money to make such a large total donation to election campaigns, the court's precedent clears the way for more private money to enter the system.
Although no longer on the court, Stevens has criticized that ruling too.
His heightened public profile in recent weeks coincides with the release of his new book, "Six Amendments." In it, the retired justice proposes a half-dozen ways the Constitution can be improved, including striking down the "Citizens United" precedent, and allowing "reasonable limits" on money that can be spent by federal candidates and their private backers.
Stevens would also eliminate the death penalty, and change the Second Amendment to restrict the rights of individual gun owners - making the provision read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."
"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech."
Ah, but there it is. Times have changed and yes, money is protected free speech.
There was a time ... in the not so distant past (2010) when folks clearly understood the distinction between 'corporations' and 'people'. What happened? Karl Rove the lobbyist of all lobbyists' voice was heard (and many suggest mighty dollars where proffered) and voila: Indeed. Corporations ARE people my friend.
Corporations Live. Corporations Breathe. Corporations Vote. Corporations Rule America.
The court seldom makes decisions based on law.......they make decisions based on political party.
"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech."
11 simple words of complete and utter truth that highlight the ultimate, core reason for the eventual fall of the USA.
Fix. It. Now.
Cruz loves all the little children of the world . red or yellow black or white He's a wonderful man and is good for america .
"Cruz loves all the little children of the world . red or yellow black or white He's a wonderful man and is good for america ."
Geesh. It's like Clockwork Orange with you guys. Did you enjoy the brainwashing?
-is this racial idiot talking? Nonsense. Pathetic thug of GOP. Don't bring this idiot on spotlight.
Green Eggs and Ham ?
Cruz did something that is rare, and that is acknowledge the intellect of a person with opposing views as being superior to his own, and doing it with grace. How refreshing. Too bad that's the exception, rather than the norm.
The really sad part of all of this is the fact that this clown, has followers. Who's worse, him, or the followers?
"Let's stop pretending more speech somehow threatens democracy." I do believe in free speech but the more money you have the LOUDER your speech gets. As long as the rich can dish out all this money, democracy will stay in the toilet. SCOTUS definitely need to redo that "Citizens United" ruling. The rich Dems and Republicans donors should not have anymore say in something than the average American.
Let's, just for a little while, remove Senator Cruz from our hearing & your articles. His fringe views are taking away time & measure from more worthwhile things. That he has praise for a judicial adversary is nice, but not relevant to anything.
If corporations are people, then what is the BMI of Koch Industries?
Defenders of Citizens United claim donors need anonymity because they are afraid of retaliation. But what about my right to free speech to respond to their actions?
Why are their rights more important than mine? And if they are so proud of their "support of the democratic free speech process," then why don't they have the guts to reveal themselves?
It all reminds me of the KKK and the way they hide behind their sheets.
And yet now we have a far less scholarly and far MORE dangerous person on the bench – Justice Scalia.
Rafeal Cruz calling somebody dangerous. Priceless. November comes quickly for Guns Over People teatards after his dangerous government shutdown