Despite a Democratic plea for a straight-ticket vote and nearly $1 million in TV ads aimed to break the GOP's exclusive hold on the Texas Supreme Court, voters Tuesday returned three incumbent Republican judges to the state's highest civil court. Voters also returned the three Republicans to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court.
"There's been a lot more uncertainty this time than there has been for the last elections," said Supreme Court Justice Phil Johnson, who defeated Democrat Linda Yanez. "The Democratic Party has made a hard push this time.
"They've had our attention this election cycle."
The defeat was the second for Yanez, a regional appellate court judge from Edinburg who lost in 2002 and was attempting to become the first Latina to hold a seat on the state's highest civil court. Johnson is a former appellate chief justice from the Panhandle who's been a Supreme Court justice for three years.
No Democrat has held even one of the nine seats on the Supreme Court or one of the nine on the Court of Criminal Appeals since late 1998 when George W. Bush's landslide victory that year gave him a second term as governor and swept fellow Republicans with him throughout the ballot
Yesterday, the House Comittee on Energy Independence and Global Warming sat down with executives from Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell to ask them to justify their 2007 record profits.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
"The American people deserve answers and it is time for Big Oil to go on the record about these record prices," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a long-time oil industry critic and chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
U.S. average pump prices have risen steadily since the beginning of 2008 and this week hit a record $3.29 a gallon. Gasoline could eclipse $4 a gallon when the peak summer driving season starts, according to some forecasts.
There has been lots of great discussion among the community at BOR about the letter sent to the TDP by the Clinton campaign. And after the dust has settled, I am convinced the Clinton campaign is neither violating Texas law or beginning a PR war.
Matt Glazer analyzes the situation properly by pointing to the cost/benefit analysis associated with postponing the convention date, and also makes note of the roll the credentials committee plays in sorting out this matter. I do not support this date being postponed, however, I do support Hillary Clinton asking the TDP to do their job properly. At the end of the day, this falls flat in the lap of the TDP, not the candidates, and that is the real reason some are offended by Clinton's proposal.
Our state has been thrown through the mud by the media due to the inability of our caucus process to manage the high voter turnout, and that is not Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's fault. Neither should be denied from expressing their concerns with the handling of our caucus because of the way the media has played us so far. However, I do support the process that is in place and hope the credentials committee is able to do the job properly. We all know their hands are full.
The following youtube video is disturbing. The voters have a right to know about the kind of racist material being preached by Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's spiritual mentor. Jesus was black? Hillary Clinton's the enemy?
But Obama's senior foreign policy advisor Susan Rice couldn't leave it at that. She went on to speak with Tucker Carlson, having this to say...
Can we please refrain from giving John McCain and his Republican friends ammo for Novembers election. That is a slip of the tongue that just can't happen.
(This is not to be viewed as an attack on anyone. It is intended to inform the voters and readers of BOR of what I feel is a serious issue. This is a simple violation that can't be made when running a successful statewide campaign. These are my thoughts and mine alone. Influenced by no one)
Texas Code for Judicial Conduct states: Refraining From Inappropriate Political Activity
Canon 5(2) A judge or judicial candidate shall not authorize the public use of his or her name endorsing another candidate for any public office, except that either may indicate support for a political party. A judge or judicial candidate may attend political events and express his or her views on political matters in accord with this Canon and Canon 3B(10)
http://www.courts.state.tx.us/...
On January 17, 2008, a blog surfaced on the web entitled, Yanez Houston & Jordan for Texas Supreme Court http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...
The contents of the web page are positive pieces, pact with endorsements for the three statewide judicial candidates running in the 2008 Democratic Primary in Texas; candidates Jim Jordan, Sam Houston, and Linda Yanez. http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...
It is not the purpose of this post to target the substance within the articles. But again, a judge or judicial candidate may not authorize the public use of his or her name endorsing another candidate for any public office.
I need to be clear that Susan does in no way approve of this post. I do not inform or ask for her permission to speak my mind. This is simply too much information for a comment box. The following information is important to BOR readers because of claims made suggesting Judge Yanez would be a better candidate in the general election due to her 20 county voting "base." The purpose of this post is not to make the case for Susan as a better statewide candidate.
I think it would be a HUGE mistake for Democrats to buy into this philosophy that any of Judge Yanez' past performances may reveal a successful trend which should consider her a better general election candidate.
Mr. Mauro had a good question for BOR user, Yanez Houston Jordan fortxsupremecourt yesterday, I felt deserved a more accurate and straightforward answer.
He asked,
What do people think about the general election prospects for Yanez and Criss? Who would be more likely to win in November?
Yanez Houston Jordan for txsupremecourt said,
I think Yanez is the stronger general election candidate (no surprise). There was some analysis here of Democratic candidates in appellate judicial races over the past 5 years, and Yanez won the highest percentage of any Democrat of all the Democrats who had contested races. Also, Yanez's "base" is 20 counties wide from Hidalgo County up through Willacy County. Judging from the tone of the Houston Chronicle's and the Dallas Morning News's endorsements of Yanez in the primary, I suspect she might very well get their endorsements in the general election, too. For a good side by side comparison of the two candidates, see the DMN voter guide.
The following answer is very misleading and is meant to cloud the minds of BOR readers. So I feel like setting the record straight.
(I think this is a ridiculous issue that is being brought up just b/c the Pats are in the Super Bowl this weekend. The issue of cheating (and cutting corners) is prevalent in every sport at all levels, and I think Senator Specter should spend more time on more important issues. Comparing this to the steroid scandal in baseball is rather ludicrous, too -- it's like Republicans comparing ballot stuffing with women trying to help senior citizens exercise their right to vote. That being said -- what else is there to talk about Super Bowl weekend? - promoted by Phillip Martin)
I couldn't help but pump my fist today while watching todays edition of Outside the Lines on ESPN. There are finally some reports and suggestions that errors were committed in the handling of "Spy Gate" by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goddell.
Republican Arlen Specter on the Senate Judiciary committee revealed he intends on making plans to sit down with NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell regarding the NFL'S antitrust exemption and the destruction of New Englands controversial video tapes which revealed the New England Patriots broke NFL rules in taping NY Jets defensive signals before the 2007 NFL season. These tapes ultimately cost the Pats and Bill Belichick $750,000 in fines and a first,or second and third round draft pick in 2008.
Quite frankly, as a fan concerned with the integrity of all sports, I want the NFL and New England Patriots investigated by Congress to the fullest extent that Major League Baseball and Bud Selig were investigated in the Mitchell Report and the House Committee.
Cheating is cheating!
Its safe to say steroids is a much more offensive and dangerous form of cheating than taping the oppositions signals, but you don't destroy game tapes unless there is something to hide. This issue deserves the same determination to investigate, and both Congress and the NFL have failed to exhibited that type of determination during the course of this season.
The emergence of Matt Walsh reveals that this issue has not been properly investigated by Commissioner Goddell and the NFL. Walsh has worked on the Patriots scouting committee and the video tape department from 1996-2003. ESPN reported today that Walsh has emerged to answer questions having to do with the operations of that department, and that he may have tapes Walsh says, "could be revealing and embarrassing to the NFL and the Patriots."
Does this Walsh guy know about a cover-up between the NFL and the Pats?
Why has it taken so long for Matt Walsh to be questioned by the commissioner?
We should applaud Senator Specters' decision to put further pressure on both the NFL and the Pats to answer more questions about their investigations. This is an issue of integrity, and the fans deserve a fair system that protects the integrity of our sports.
I want to make sure readers understand I don't take any credit away from the players on the Pats. They are clearly the most talented team in the NFL and on the verge of winning the Super Bowl, which they clearly deserve.
"The American people deserve to know about the integrity of their game."
-Arlen Specter
