Sleepless in Midland

The Flynn case demonstrates the plea bargain fiction

One of absurd aspects of the Michael Flynn case is the recent suggestion by Federal Judge Sullivan that Flynn could be in contempt of court for perjury because Flynn pleaded guilty but later withdrew that plea.

If there's anything good to come from this case it should be a change in the law that requires a defendant to plea guilty in order to accept a plea bargain. Most criminal cases end with a plea bargain. And it's conceivable that an innocent person could plea guilty in order to avoid the expense and hardship of a trial, not to mention the possibility that an eloquent prosecutor with circumstantial evidence could convince a jury that the person is guilty.

The law needs to be changed. A person should be able to accept a plea bargain without having to convince a judge that he/she actually committed the crime.

Related: Federal Judge Orders Arguments on Whether Michael Flynn Should Be Jailed for Perjury

------
6:08 AM 5/14/2020

Should someone registering to vote be required to show proof of citizenship? 10th Circuit says "no"

The state of Kansas simply wanted to require people registering to vote to show proof of citizenship. That should have been easy.

However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the roughly 30,000 people who couldn't prove their citizenship shows that the "requirement unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote." And the court ruled the Kansas law unconstitutional. Further, the court ruled that having to prove citizenship violated the "minimum-information" requirement of the Motor Voter law.

There are plenty of partisans who want to make it as easy as possible to register to vote, but that seems like an invitation to fraud. Fraud does happen, and it's hard to ferret out. Voter fraud happens in a number of ways, and efforts are being made to eliminate the various ways to cheat. However, it requires plugging each hole. In the aggregate the number of fraudulent votes could be large, but any one tactic might not yield a huge number of votes. Reformers have to tackle each tactic one by one. The job is made more difficult by the requirement that large numbers of cheaters must be proved before reform is allowed.

Anyway, for a discussion of the case by the the Kansas Secretary of State at the time the law was passed, see Kobach: The Tenth Circuit Wrongly Strikes Down Kansas’s Proof-of-Citizenship Election Requirement. And click FISH v. SCHWAB to read the 10th Circuit's opinion.

------
10:15 AM 4/30/2020

Building a bigger wall - Gov Abbott expands list of excluded visitors to those arriving through border with Louisiana

Texas Governor Abbott is still at it. Last week Executive Order No. GA-11 mandated quarantine for travelers arriving at airports in Texas from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut or New Orleans.

He closed the roadway loophole with a new executive order GA-12 which expands the uninvited list to include the following:

Every person who enters the State of Texas through roadways from Louisiana,or from any other state as may be proclaimed hereafter, shall be subject to mandatory self-quarantine for a period of 14 days from the time of entry into Texas or the duration of the person’s presence in Texas, whichever is shorter.

Furthermore, his Proclamation of 3/30/2020 expanded the previous air travel order to include people arriving from the following cities and states:

State of California;
State of Louisiana;
State of Washington;
City of Atlanta, Georgia;
City of Chicago, Illinois;
City of Detroit, Michigan; and
City of Miami, Florida.

Don't mess with Texas.

------
2:32 PM 3/30/2020

Build a wall -- Texas Governor orders people flying in from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut or New Orleans subject to mandatory 14 day quarantine and face fine or jail time for violation

This is huge.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Executive Order No. GA-11 relating to airport screening and self-quarantine during the COVID-19 disaster which subjects airport entries to possible quarantine.

The press release can be found here: Governor Abbott Issues Executive Order Mandating 14-Day Quarantine For Travelers Arriving From New York Tri-State Area, New Orleans. Excerpt:

Those entering Texas as their final destination from the designated areas will use a form from DPS to designate their quarantine location. DPS special agents will conduct unannounced visits to designated quarantine locations to verify compliance. Failure to comply with this order is considered a criminal offense that is punishable by up to a $1,000 fine, up to 180 days in jail, or both.

And get this:

Each person covered under this order to self quarantine shall be responsible for all associated costs, including transportation, lodging, food, and medical care.

Don't mess with Texas.

------
1:17 PM 3/29/2020

Not a jury of his peers -- Roger Stone juror was Trump hater

One of the foundations of the U.S. criminal justice system is that the defendant is entitled to a jury of his/her peers. Unfortunately, the federal court system's jury voir dire gives the judge the authority to question the jurors, not the attorneys. And while a prospective juror might proclaim impartiality, it would be difficult for the defense attorney to root out some deep seated animosity.

And now we are hearing about the jury foreman, Tomeka Hart, in Roger Stone's trial. Seems she is a Democrat party activist and an avid Trump hater. Furthermore, there were others on the jury with similar bias. Could it be that no one in a typical Washington, D.C. jury pool not biased against Donald Trump? If that's the case, the trial should have been removed to another jurisdiction.

References: Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?;
Tomeka Hart: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know;
Roger Stone mistrial? Trump hater Tomeka Hart was Jury Foreman;
Roger Stone Requests A New Trial, Citing Revelations About Anti-Trump Juror.

------
11:36 AM 2/15/2020

Gorsuch on North Korean constitution -- our quote of the week

Neil Gorsuch's book, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It," provides this quote of the week. The JPG scan is the first page of chapter 2 of the book and addresses the North Korean constitution.

Justice Gorsuch says the NorKor constitution is similar to the constitutions of most communist countries. Then this:

But everyone knows that the promises found in these documents aren't worth the paper they're written on.

He makes an important point. Our own constitution is only worth what people think it's worth. In case there's any doubt, it is worth respecting. But if/when that respect is gone, then it won't be worth much as a rule of law.

We've got a good country here, if we can keep it. Let's not screw it up.

P.S. Anyone wanting to read the North Korean constitution can do so at this link.

------
10:35 AM 12/28/2019

Happy Constitution Day 9-17-2019

September 17, 1787, was the day delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution. And while Constitution Day isn't a work holiday, we should celebrate it anyway.

It's a great constitution, and it will continue to serve us well if we let it. There are despotic regimes out there with great constitutions that aren't followed. The strength of a constitution depends on the people respecting it and our government following it.

As Ronald Reagan said:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

------
5:49 AM 9/17/2019

Texas prosecutors decline to enforce marijuana possession laws after hemp legalized

They didn't see this coming. This year, Texas passed a law legalizing hemp. It also has prosecutors dropping hundreds of marijuana cases. Simply put, if a defendant claims it's legal hemp, prosecutors don't currently have the means to disprove that claim.

More here: After New Hemp Law, Texas Prosecutors Differ On When To Charge Those Arrested For Marijuana.

Because of a new state law, prosecutors across Texas have dropped hundreds of low-level marijuana charges and have indicated they won’t pursue new ones without further testing. ...

“The distinction between marijuana and hemp requires proof of the THC concentration of a specific product or contraband, and for now, that evidence can come only from a laboratory capable of determining that type of potency — a category which apparently excludes most, if not all, of the crime labs in Texas right now,” stated an advisory released by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association last month.

But wait a sec. Governor Abbott says prosecute anyway if the possessor doesn't have a hemp shipping certificate. See Abbott Orders Texas Prosecutors to Enforce Marijuana Laws. Excerpt:

“If a person is transporting hemp but has no certificate, you may now prosecute that person for the offense of failing to have a hemp certificate,” the memo reads … before going on to state that such certification does not yet exist: “If they have a certificate, which the Department has yet to promulgate, then it’s a fake – which is a felony.”

Alrighty then.

------
2:48 PM 9/11/2019

Quote of the week -- Neil Gorsuch on a living constitution

The idea of a living constitution seems to accompany the adherence to progressive ideology. But a living constitution basically says whatever a judge thinks it should say, not what the constitution actually says. The quote of the week comes from Justice Neil Gorsuch: Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution. To wit:

I suspect the real complaint of living constitutionalists isn’t with old laws generally so much as it is with the particular terms of this old law. The Constitution is short—only about 7,500 words, including all its amendments. It doesn’t dictate much about the burning social and political questions they care about. Instead, it leaves the resolution of those matters to elections and votes and the amendment process. And it seems this is the real problem for the critics. For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.

Well said, Justice Gorsuch. (Bold added for emphasis.)

------
2:20 PM 9/8/2019

9th Circuit Court of Appeals fires a non-lethal shot at nationwide injunctions

The 9th circuit ruling in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al, v. Barr, et al. narrows a lower court national injunction against a rule making anyone who crossed the southern border but who did not apply for protection in a third country through which the alien passed on the way to the U.S. ineligible for asylum in the U.S.

The lower court's injunction still applies within the 9th Circuit but not elsewhere.

While the Court of Appeals still maintains that nationwide injunctions are worthwhile in some instances, this isn't one of them. Dang. Complaints about nationwide injunctions keep piling up, and it's time something was done to eliminate them.

Bob Goodlatte introduced legislation last year that would stop them. But once the House became dominated by Democrats, that was the end of that.

We'll just have to hope some future congress and president can come together on the issue. Or else maybe the Supreme Court will do it. Until then we are stuck with them.

------
3:21 PM 8/17/2019

Texas lawmakers should abolish the archaic package store liquor laws

Governor Abbott is boasting about a bill he signed allowing customers to order beer and wine delivered to their homes. That sounds reasonable considering that it might eliminate some drunk drivers going back to the store for one last beer run. And the beer lobby is probably celebrating mightily.

But if the governor and the legislature really wanted to serve the drinking public they would get rid of those package store laws that prohibits the sale of liquor at stores other than liquor stores. Other states allow it, and they don't seem to be having any problems with it.

Efforts this year for a repeal of the law are falling flat -- the package store lobby must be fighting it tooth and nail.

------
10:59 AM 6/5/2019

trial lawyers are the dogs that didn't bark in the issue of unequal pay to women and men

Kamala Harris made a big to-do about the perceived issue of women being paid less than men. The only reason this could be an issue is because of the way they do the math. They are taking total pay and applying men's income and women's income separately to the total without regard to anything but the totals. Anyone who has ever worked knows that some people really do deserve more pay than others because of their abilities in the workplace.

But never mind that, because, Socialism!

Anyone who watches cable channels has seen lawyers' commercials seeking cases concerning Roundup, vehicle accidents with company trucks, mesothelioma, and other possible causes of action.

There has been a law on the books prohibiting unequal pay since 1963. So if there really is a problem, how come trial lawyers aren't blanketing the TV with commercials about that?

The dogs aren't barking. And that should tell us something.

------
2:37 PM 5/25/2019

In defense of Chief Justice Roberts -- maybe he was merely saying what he thought the federal judiciary should be

The federal judiciary should be independent of politics. But it isn't. Justice John Roberts in his highly public statement may have been chiding other judges, not Donald Trump. Roberts' comment can be found HERE. To wit:

Normally restrained Chief Justice John Roberts took issue on Wednesday with President Donald Trump's characterization of a federal judge who ruled against his administration as an "Obama judge." 

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

"That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Roberts issued the statement in response to a request from The Associated Press after Trump's comments about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, who on Monday blocked the Trump administration's effort to keep migrants trying to enter the U.S. from applying for asylum.

Unfortunately, there are too many Federal Judges who think we have a "living constitution" -- a constitution like a rubber band to be stretched to fit whatever the popular view happens to be. It's hard to be a constitutionalist. The jurist has to know the constitution and be current on all the precedent about the issue. Adherents to the "living constitution" theory need only have read the opinion pages of two or three national newspapers.

Chief Justice Roberts has to know that there are too many "living constitution" judges on the bench and too many judges who will indeed rule for or against a sitting president's policies based on politics. And giving Roberts the full benefit of the doubt, he could have been trying to diplomatically point out to them that they are doing it wrong. We all want Justices who will look at the law, not at the litigants. They call that blind justice.

------

1:58 PM 11/22/2018

Alabama Supreme Court Justice calls it a logical fallacy -- fetus is living for one purpose but not for another

The problem became apparent to those of us who had never thought of it before when prosecutors began to call the killing of a fetus by someone other than his/her mother, "murder." However, it's been perfectly legal for the mother to do it herself since 1973.

An Alabama Supreme Court Justice took notice of the problem. See Alabama Justice Argues That Fetal Homicide Ruling Mandates Challenge to Roe:

According to Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a person when pursuing a homicide conviction, but not in the case of a woman wanting to terminate her pregnancy through an abortion.

It's not clear which of the Logical Fallacies this falls under. But there is a definite inconsistency. Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually provide us with some logical reasoning for the contradiction, because overturning Roe v. Wade seems highly unrealistic.

------

2:42 PM 10/31/2018

Give future Supreme Court nominees a case of whatever Kavanaugh drinks

As this post is being typed, Brett Kavanaugh has just now received Senate approval for his promotion to Supreme Court Justice. News reporter says he is to be sworn in on Tuesday following Columbus Day.

What a remarkable ride this has been. Democrats overplayed their hand throughout the whole thing. And many of us out here in flyover country have been appalled at their tactics. Will this energize people enough to vote to retain Republican control of the House and Senate? We'll see.

In any case, Donald Trump or some future Republican president will have the opportunity to name new justices to replace those who retire or otherwise vacate their seats.

So give those nominees a case of whatever Kavanaugh drinks! You'll recognize that as a paraphrase of the famous Abe Lincoln response to one of his advisers who complained that General Grant drank too much whiskey. I toast thee, nominee!

------

3:01 PM 10/6/2018

Updated 10/7/2018. Kavanaugh was sworn in last night.

Robert Bork was the first test of the left's war tactic on judicial nominees

An excellent history lesson came to us by way of the weekend Wall Street Journal in Robert Bork’s Proud Legacy and the Senate’s Shameful One. The link is paywalled, but here's an alternate link.

Bork was an originalist, and the idea of another originalist on the bench -- Antonin Scalia had been a Justice for about a year by then -- really scared Democrats who were steeped in the doctrine of a "living constitution." So they loaded both barrels and pulled the trigger.

Bork had been encouraged to fight back the way Oliver North had done, but Bork was too high brow to see it that way. Instead he simply answered their questions honestly. Honesty is a fine trait, but it's no match against opponents who don't possess it.

Here's Pulliam in the WSJ article:

Less than an hour after Reagan announced the nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy made one of the most disgraceful speeches ever delivered on the Senate floor. He falsely accused Bork of standing for “back-alley abortions,” segregated lunch counters, “rogue police” conducting midnight raids, censorship and other horrors. “Not one line of that tirade was true,” Bork later reflected.

Here's Mark Pulliam again in City Journal. The Original Originalist.

Bork’s defeat was a watershed event in judicial politics, and reverberates still—it prevented a conservative realignment of the Court (due to the appointment of moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy in place of Bork) and forever transformed the judicial-confirmation process into an ideological gauntlet. No High Court nominee would ever again be as forthright, or be denied confirmation for such transparently ideological reasons. Ironically, the Senate’s rejection of Bork—due to his steadfast advocacy of judicial restraint and sticking to the constitutional text—did not prevent the ascendancy of his brand of “originalist” constitutional theory and, in fact, may have bolstered it, by giving him a bully pulpit that he would use effectively for the rest of his life.

I understand the administrations now run nominees through a rigorous skill test to get them through ambushes like the one that hit Bork. Kavanaugh may not get any Democrat votes, but hopefully he will be seen by the public as the winner.

------

2:16 PM 9/2/2018

The left wants Trump to ignore fed court ruling -- hilarious

For over a year federal judges have ruled against Trump administration initiatives. And the left cheered.

So it's ironic and funny to see them wring their hands over a ruling on 3d printed guns. And take a look at this Associated Press article, noting particularly the underlined words.

"Gun-control groups made a last-ditch effort Friday to block the Trump administration from allowing Americans access to blue-prints for 3D printable guns on the internet, ..."

What exactly is the Trump administration supposed to do? How exactly does a president overrule a federal judge? That certainly isn't a power the left would want to bestow on Donald Trump. It's laughable.

------

11:24 AM 7/29/2018

Strzok and friends make it hard to look at that whole FBI thing dispassionately

It's hard to remain objective about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Sometimes I have to step back from the news and question whether I'm merely getting caught up in the lynch mob atmosphere, or whether there really were some serious shenanigans going on with that whole top level FBI tilt in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump.

Peter Struzok and Lisa Page certainly don't help their cause when they play cat and mouse with Congress. For details, see the following:

US Marshals served subpoena on FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Goodlatte says, threatening to hold her in contempt; and
BREAKING: Goodlatte Says FBI's Peter Strzok Will Be Recalled For Contempt

I recall how joyous a Democrat acquaintance was when Scooter Libby was convicted. It's high time some of those nefarious FBI agents received some well deserved justice.

------

3:47 PM 7/12/2018

Dems gearing up to oppose Trump's Supreme Court nominee even if they don't know who it is

Accuracy in Media points us to an effort to gin up forces to oppose Trump's next Supreme Court nominee, whomever it is, in WaPo’s Marcus: Time for Another Bork Moment. In the article, WaPo deputy editorial page director Ruth Marcus praises Elena Kagan, laments the failure of Merrick Garland's nomination, and celebrates Robert Bork's defeat. Marcus' article can be found at This must be another Bork moment:

From my vantage point — and I covered the Bork confirmation — it was a fight worth waging with all necessary ferocity.

I wasn't paying attention during the Bork hearings, but the Clarence Thomas hearings certainly brought home how hard Democrats will fight against a Republican nominee.

Democrats pretend they don't want partisan splits on the court, but that's not right. They certainly don't regret them when the decisions favor Democrats.

Democrats should be grateful that Republicans don't select judges the way Democrats do. We are all much better off with judges and justices who make decisions based on what the Constitution says and not based on popular culture and political whim.

------

9:51 AM 7/5/2018

Let's hope Gorsuch rules in the right direction in Janus v. AFSCME

That's the case the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on which will decide whether employees can be required to pay union dues.

Common sense says that employees should be able to decide for themselves, but laws are in place in some states which require payment whether the employee wants to or not. But it could be close. See The Janus case could mean the restoration of government workers’ constitutional right to free speech in which Mailee Smith says this:

Based on past cases and oral arguments in Janus, court watchers expect the justices to line up 4-4 – with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito supporting plaintiff Mark Janus and worker freedom, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan supporting defendant AFSCME and forced union fees.

Justice Neil Gorsuch will likely be the deciding fifth vote – but he remained silent during oral argument, giving no indication where he may land.

A money source that Democrats have relied on for years may be in jeopardy. They are probably very nervous about the outcome of this case.

Some of us in the libertarian/conservative camp were ambivalent about Donald Trump before the election. Yet one thing we genuinely hoped for was a return of originalism to the federal courts. Neil Gorsuch was a big win, and hopefully, he'll come through on this case.

Related: Janus vs. AFSCME looms large for liberal spending groups; and
A pending decision in the Janus v. AFSCME case could wreak havoc on the Democrats’ fundraising future.

------

9:54 AM 6/14/2018

Trump gets high marks for originalist judge nominations

This blogger declared himself to be a one issue voter -- the U.S. Supreme Court -- prior to the November 2016 election. Trump came through with the Gorsuch nomination. Of course, that came after Mitch McConnell cleared the runway for his arrival.

But those of us who like originalist judges weren't satisfied. We want more! And Trump seems to be accommodating. A report about this appeared in a Bloomberg article which Hugh Hewitt referenced in his Saturday morning TV show. Written by Sahil Kapur and Laura Litvan, it's titled McConnell Cements a Legacy for Trump With Reshaped Courts. Excerpts:

The Republican-led Senate confirmed Trump’s 15th appeals court nominee this week — more than the last five presidents at this juncture — with eight of the new judges in their 40s, and seven in their 50s. McConnell set the stage Thursday to confirm six more, one day after a committee voted to cut debate time, which if approved would further speed things up.

The court realignment is the product of the Senate Republican leader playing a long game by holding up then-President Barack Obama’s court nominees and then closely collaborating with Trump’s White House Counsel Don McGahn. Both men have made it a priority to advance judges ensconced in originalist legal thinking favored by the Federalist Society, which distrusts New Deal-era jurisprudence and seeks to limit the federal government’s ability to assert powers that aren’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. ...

Trump’s record so far also includes 17 Trump-nominated judges on district courts, and conservative favorite Neil Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court after McConnell made the extraordinary move of refusing to consider Obama nominee Merrick Garland in 2016.

Elections have consequences, as a famous man once said. And finally, an election may have had favorable consequences for those among us who favor originalist judges.

------

2:18 PM 5/7/2018

If Michael Cohen has any other clients besides Donald Trump, they must really be sweating

The news that the FBI conducted a raid on Michael Cohen's office, home, and hotel hit the wires big time. What did they take? We get this snippet from Wapo:

FBI agents on Monday raided Cohen’s Manhattan office, home and hotel room as part of the investigation, seizing records about Cohen’s clients and personal finances. ... Investigators took Cohen’s computer, phone and personal financial records, including tax returns, as part of the search of his office at Rockefeller Center, that person said.

Perhaps Donald Trump is Mr. Cohen's only client. But if he has others, they must be shaking in their boots. Prosecutors will likely have access to confidential communications they had with Cohen. Prosecutors would try to avoid an appearance of impropriety. But if they see something they didn't know about another subject of an investigation, they couldn't look away. That's just common nature, and what we've seen in the last several years about the justice department, legal niceties aren't always followed. Furthermore, if they found something useful but it's inadmissible, they would try to obtain it some other way.

As the old saying goes, it's easier to apologize than to ask permission.

This episode will also deter any prospective Trump attorney.

------

11:02 AM 4/10/2018

Who will police the prosecutors?

In The Other FBI Scandal in The Future of Capitalism some shenanigans conducted by an FBI agent. And it's a reminder that they aren't all saints. It's worth a look.

But my focus is on a short quote found there from Attorney General Robert H. Jackson in a speech 78 years ago. Some search engine sleuthing revealed the speech here: THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. There AG Jackson describes the powers a prosecutor has and sometimes abuses. Here's an excerpt:

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor ,stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.

In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm ­in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime be­comes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

Scary stuff. But he ends the speech on a positive note, to wit:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

If only they all would seek "truth and not victims."

------

3:42 PM 2/9/2018

Texas Attorney General rewrites, er uh, "interprets" prohibition of handguns in churches

To my eye, this looks like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has trying to rewrite the handgun law restriction against licensed handgun carrying in churches. While I have no objection to the outcome, I wish the legislature had done it -- the separation of powers should apply at the state level as well as the federal level.

The statute is pretty clear:

PENAL CODE
Sec. 46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
...
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder's person:
...(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;

(See also the License to Carry Handbook.)

However, Attorney General Paxton has opined that the statute should be construed with the sections which allow a property owner to prohibit carrying on the premises by displaying specific signage. He says that applies to churches, too. With that interpretation, prohibition applies only in churches that display the 30.06 (concealed) or 30.07 (open carry) signs.

That's all well and good, however his opinions don't carry the weight of law. See this from About Attorney General Opinions:

Courts have stated that attorney general opinions are highly persuasive and are entitled to great weight; however, the ultimate determination of a law's applicability, meaning or constitutionality is left to the courts.

The Texas legislature won't meet again until 2019, so to get it done right we'll have to wait.

------

1:59 PM 12/23/2017

That curious reference to an insurance policy against Trump

Just what exactly was that "insurance policy" agent Peter Strzok was referring to in his text to Lisa Page? Quoted from The FBI’s Trump ‘Insurance’:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok wrote Ms. Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text. He added: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

If I had to guess, I would say they are cashing in the insurance policy with the investigation that is ongoing against President Trump.

Strzok was schtupping Page. And Greg Gutfeld may have be onto something when he said something to the effect that the texts sounded like macho bravado from a guy who wanted to demonstrate to his current squeeze that he was loaded with testosterone.

Nevertheless, the texts from someone so close to the investigations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were disturbing. Reminded me of a conversation I had with a federal bureaucrat around the time George W. Bush was elected. The bureaucrat bragged that he had ways to make an agency director look bad if he wanted to. The partisanship was disturbing then, and it is now.  We can only hope that eventually the swamp will be drained of those people who can't control themselves, forget politics, and do the job they were hired to do.

Related: So, What’s This ‘Insurance Policy’ Against Trump That These FBI Agents Discussed In Text Messages? and
Byron York: After mysterious 'insurance policy' text, will Justice Department reveal more on FBI agent bounced from Mueller probe?

------

8:44 AM 12/14/2017

President Trump, please keep up the good work with judge appointments

Prior to the November election I proclaimed myself to be a one issue voter: A Supreme Court Justice nominee who was more constitutional than ideological to replace Scalia. Trump came through with Neil Gorsuch. So I should probably just sit down and shut up instead of greedily wanting more good judges. But it certainly is reassuring to see articles like this: 5th Trump judicial nominee confirmed, outpacing Obama, Bush. Trump is coming through without my help.

Trump has appointed a good slate of federal judges, and Democrats are grasping at straws (or straw men) to find ways to complain. Most notable is Dianne Feinstein's objection to Trump's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, because Barrett is Catholic.

Whoops.

Feinstein must have forgotten the time way back in the 1960s when the Democrat icon John F. Kennedy had to explain that party dogma meant more to him than his Catholicism. Democrats grabbed onto that and were all in for JFK. I don't know whether senility is a genuine medical word or a pejorative. But one has to wonder about 84 year old Feinstein.

Meanwhile, President Trump, please keep up the good work on judgeship nominations. Oh, and just ignore Al Franken who can't quite be either the funny clown or the scary clown.

Gingrich is probably right to call Mueller's team mission a witch hunt with Trump as the target

The other day on Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday Newt Gingrich weighed in on Robert Mueller's special council job. Here's NYPost.com, Gingrich calls on GOP to ‘abolish’ Trump-Russia probe:

WASHINGTON – Former GOP House Speaker GOP Newt Gingrich called on Republicans to “abolish” the Special Counsel investigation into any Trump campaign ties to Russia.

Gingrich is breaking with the majority of Capitol Hill Republicans who had widely praised the credibility of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to fairly and thoroughly investigate Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and potential obstruction of justice charges against President Trump.

“I think this is going to be a witch hunt,” Gingrich told “Fox News Sunday.” ...

Gingrich said the investigation is “tainted” since former FBI Director James Comey admitted Thursday he leaked his memos about his meetings with President Trump to the New York Times in effort to spark the appointment of a special counsel.

“It is very clear that Comey hates Trump,” Gingrich added in an interview Sunday with John Catsimatidis on AM 970 in New York.

It’s “nonsense” to think Mueller will be “neutral,” Gingrich told Fox News Sunday. The former presidential candidate said the team Mueller is assembling will be “dangerous” to Trump.

He didn't bring out anything that hasn't been said before, but he does lay it out on the table for all of us to see. In the Fox News Sunday show he compared it with the Valarie Plame debacle in which the special council didn't find out anything he didn't already know but ended up charging Scooter Libby with lying. And he very much reminded us what a witch hunt looks like.

Maybe Gingrich was firing a shot across the bow to warn Mueller and company that many will be expecting fairness and watching for bias. But will they care? We shall see. A smart lawyer can always find some high minded justification for what he does.

------

2:11 PM 6/12/2017

Six years late -- Sharyl Attkisson finally gets answers on Fast and Furious

If not for the dogged reporting work of Sharyl Attkisson we may never have heard about the infamous Fast and Furious and gun walking scandal of the Obama justice department. That, you will recall, involved the scheme through which guns Obama sought to ban in the U.S. were allowed to go to Mexico. The purpose was to cement public opinion against guns. That many of those guns fell into the hands of killers may or may not have been the original intent. But that was a result, a foreseeable one.

Ms. Attkisson finally received responses to some of her freedom of information requests which she reproduces at New Fast and Furious secrets from government emails.

As Democrats focus on James Comey's testimony to try to find some way to smear Donald Trump, impartial observers should recall just how bad Eric Holder's justice department was. Were there criminal violations of which the statute of limitations hasn't yet expired? I don't know, but we do know there was a cover-up.

Drain the swamp!

------

1:02 PM 6/8/2017

David Dao, tear down that settlement confidentiality wall and tell us how much you got

There's always something discomforting about settlement agreements with non-disclosure clauses. They all have them, but it suggests that it was all about the money.

The msm made a victim and a hero out of Dr. Dao by showing the video of him being dragged off a plane. One radio commentator said he was removed from the plane then came back on displaying facial injuries. We don't know how he got the injuries -- did the security officers beat him up? Did he inflict the injuries on himself?

In any event, his lawyers parlayed the bad publicity for United into what we have to guess was a pretty big settlement. But they won't disclose the amount, obviously because of a non-disclosure clause in the contract.

I call on Dr. Dao to disclose the amount. United would ask him to give the money back. He could refuse, like he did when they asked him to get off the plane. Maybe he'll retain that hero status. People are always saying, "It's not about the money." But he could demonstrate that it wasn't about the money. Otherwise, we are left to surmise that it was about the money.

12:59 PM 4/29/2017

Decide which side you like in lawsuit then find law to support that side -- that's the Democrats' standard for Sup Ct Justice

The worker vs the boss, the little guy vs the big guy. Listen to Dems questioning of Neil Gorsuch and one comes away with the conclusion that that's the only issue they think about.

That's the wrong way to look at it. The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law in regard to the Constitution without respect for whether one of the litigants comes across as mean spirited and the other sympathetic. We should all want Justices who will look at the law, not the litigants. They call that blind justice.

Neil Gorsuch seems to meet that standard quite easily. But Democrats, emboldened by the recent removal of Obamacare from the Republicans' chopping block, want to score more victories. And they are mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch. Thank goodness for the Reid Rule.

1:44 PM 3/28/2017