March 30, 2005
The Texas Supremes
By Jim Dallas
The Texas Supremes came down to UH this morning to hear a couple of appeals in front of a student audience (press release). I had to sit down and watch one of the hearings. Here are my observations:
Chief Justice Jefferson is both taller and somewhat more soft-spoken than I had gathered. Just sort of exudes quiet dignity. Wowsa.
Justice Brister asked a lot of sharp, pointed, and occasionally amusing "stump-the-lawyer" questions. Which kept an otherwise dry (ok, dull) event interesting. In retrospect, I probably should have voted for him in November for that reason alone. Although I quiver at the thought of ever having to appear before him in some future career.
Justice Owen, often thought of as an appointee to a higher judicial office, asked a few questions, but mostly took notes quietly.
Appointee Phil Johnson sat in the audience taking notes.
The most inquisitive justices seemed to be (in descending order) O'Neill, Brister, Jefferson, Owen, Medina, Wainwright, Hecht and Green. In fact, I don't recall hearing Justice Green ask any questions.
Posted by Jim Dallas at March 30, 2005 10:52 AM
| TrackBack
I also recall seeing Scott (now "Justice") Brister at UH about 20 years ago, when I was there to discuss gay bashing at a meeting there. Brister was then a well known advocate for rabid anti-gay causes. At the end of my presentation, Mr. Brister did not ask any "amusing 'stump the lawyer'" questions (I was an attorney), but just sat there and sulked. But I could not resist asking one myself: "any questions from you, Mister Brister." He had none, but just got up and left--my presentation to the students was a success.
Of course, now the whole Rebublican/Bigot Party is a well known anti-gay hate group, and is in charge of the Lone Star State, with Mr. Brister appointed as the "interesting" and "amusing" "Justice" to the state Supreme Court, leaving Mr. Dallas in a "quiver." I am reminded of Dorothy (not grown up or keen to what is going on), the Tin Man (no heart), the Scarecrow (no brain) and, most of all of course, the Cowardly Lion, quivering before this Supreme example of whatever kind of "Justice" Texas now has to offer.
"Stump the lawyer" questions rarely add any light to an appellate argument. The judge who asks the most questions is usually the one who's least prepared (NOTE: this rule applies to legislative testimony as well).
I didn't vote for Brister (although I know a few Democrats that did). But if we're going to be stuck with Republicans, we might as well get ones that make us laugh and cry (and they all make us cry).
That said, agreement with both of you.
