Texas Republican Judge Switches Party, Denouncing GOP as Party of Bigots and Hate-Mongers

[JayHawk]

LOL.... And you said you werent missed.... shucky nah... I imagine two person reported this... whatever...


Welcome back!!!

Thanks for bringing some intellectual insight back to the Texas post... not that our many Texans leave it out BUT I know how much you have researched the history and that lends to your perspective.

On the various troll doll parts I see laying around here..... just remember you have to pick up your toys when you're done playing....

John Kasich made an end run around the Tea Party in Ohio to expand medicaid. So while may republicans have are still checking for bleeding, some are actually trying to pull their party back to the middle (or at least a close resemblance of what the middle might look like). I will expect the actual leaders to step up and make their stake, whether with the tea party or with the vast majority of their party.

 

[opinterph]

If you want to run for public office anywhere in Texas that's above a "city council level" you have to pick a D or an R to run.

Almost all judicial elections in my state are non-partisan. [Link]

Do you think it helps voters to know a judicial candidate’s party affiliation?

 

[chrisrobin]

Mexico is essentially a one party "democracy". That is the democrat goal for the US.

That is the [STRIKE]democrat[/STRIKE] Democratic goal for the US.

There...fixed it.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Do you think it helps voters to know a judicial candidate’s party affiliation?

When I was very young in PA and just becoming interested in politics I once made the mistake of asking a judicial candidate I knew what her party affiliation was and she looked at me like I had two heads and politely told me she had no intention of telling me. She then went on to explain WHY she wouldn't tell me and I "got" it.

I voted for her, she won and, although it doesn't matter to the story, she became the judge who, years later, first blew the lid off of the "Kids for Cash" scandal in my hometown. Even though she was removed from the bench, I STILL don't know her party affiliation (though I can hazard a GUESS though it's still just that)

 

[TX-Beau]

I have to disagree. It's incredibly important to know a Judge's political leanings - because the right wing fuckers will corrupt the law to push their own agendas.

Ask yourself, would you want to be a gay man, with a gay case before Ted the Messiah?

How do you think that would go?

 

[TX-Beau]

Can anyone say Gore v. Bush? Citizens United?

 

[T-Rexx]

Almost all judicial elections in my state are non-partisan.

IMHO, there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" election.

My state also has "non-partisan" judicial elections. The party affiliations are not listed on the ballot. And yet, we have not had a single elected Democratic Party judicial candidate in my county in more than 20 years ( I believe you have to go back to the 1960s). How is that possible?

Do you think it helps voters to know a judicial candidate’s party affiliation?

A candidate for a judicial position almost never reveals his/her views on gay marriage, civil rights, or a host of other issues.

Almost the only hint we have as to how judicial candidates think is their party affiliation.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Almost all judicial elections in my state are non-partisan. [Link]

Do you think it helps voters to know a judicial candidate’s party affiliation?

No I don't. Most judicial office holders that I know don't legislate from a party platform, but by the rule of law.

 

[Benvolio]

Can anyone say Gore v. Bush? Citizens United?

Roe v. Wade.............

 

[Alnitak]

Roe v. Wade.............

United States v. Windsor

 

[Benvolio]

Roe v. Wade.............

Liberals/democrats do not have the high ground on following the Constitution and rule of law. You forget that Gore v Bush came about because the all Democrat FL Supreme Court attempted to change the election law in mid election to allow the Democrat dominated boards to search for and count dimples as votes. Remember board members searching with magnifying glasses?
Citizens United simply enforced the Constitution. "Congress shall pass no law..abridging the freedom of speech or the press".

 

[Alnitak]

^^^

Very clever ploy to quote your own post, skip over mine, and get the first post on top of the next page.

Did you think no one would notice?

 

[Rolyo85]

Roe v. Wade.............

A powerful case for freedom from oppressive religious dogma. What does it have to do with the GOP being bigots and hate-mongers?

 

[CowboyBob]

A powerful case for freedom from oppressive religious dogma. What does it have to do with the GOP being bigots and hate-mongers?

You beat me to this. I was just going to ask what Roe vs Wade has to do with a republican judge changing parties?

Poor try on his part at hijacking the thread.

 

[Rolyo85]

You beat me to this. I was just going to ask what Roe vs Wade has to do with a republican judge changing parties?

Poor try on his part at hijacking the thread.

No it's more that he thinks it will be something to be ashamed of, when Roe v Wade is one of the shining moments of this country.

 

[Kulindahr]

Can anyone say Gore v. Bush? Citizens United?

Citizens United was a group of citizens engaging in free speech, who were censored by government campaign laws -- when they weren't even campaigning. To have gone the other way, the Court would have had to agree that Congress had the power to take any group of the public and deny them the right to engage in political speech -- for example, to shut down all political discussion on the internet. So the Citizens United case was decided in favor of free speech, and all talk of "reversing" it is opposing free speech.

The problem with the decision lies in the arguments for it, which detached free speech from any concept of personhood, so that inanimate entities get free speech.

 

[CowboyBob]

No it's more that he thinks it will be something to be ashamed of, when Roe v Wade is one of the shining moments of this country.

Okay. Apparently he's for government and opposing religious intrusion in people's private lives. Most right wingers are if it's an issue they want.

 

[Benvolio]

A powerful case for freedom from oppressive religious dogma. What does it have to do with the GOP being bigots and hate-mongers?

It is relevant to choosing Judges who will follow the Constitution and rule of law, rather than imposing their own liberal agenda.

 

[opinterph]

I once made the mistake of asking a judicial candidate I knew what her party affiliation was and she looked at me like I had two heads and politely told me she had no intention of telling me. She then went on to explain WHY she wouldn't tell me and I "got" it.

Are you willing to share the secret? Why would she not tell you her party affiliation?

It's incredibly important to know a Judge's political leanings

Does that imply that judges sometimes impose their political ideology when ruling on cases?

Most judicial office holders that I know don't legislate from a party platform, but by the rule of law.

A candidate for a judicial position almost never reveals his/her views on gay marriage, civil rights, or a host of other issues.

Almost the only hint we have as to how judicial candidates think is their party affiliation.

Is there a reason why judicial candidates should not share their views on controversial issues?

[A judicial candidate’s assessment of the decision in Roe v. Wade] is relevant to choosing Judges who will follow the Constitution and rule of law, rather than imposing their own … agenda.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is relevant to choosing Judges who will follow the Constitution and rule of law, rather than imposing their own liberal agenda.

Neither party wants judges that will follow the Constitution. The only difference is that they despise different parts of it.