TexProdigy

San Antonio Elections

Early voting in San Antonio started yesterday. Election day is on May 7th. During early voting and on May 7th, San Antonians will elect a new mayor, council members, and vote on three propositions.

Here are my endorsements for council, mayor, and the propositions:

Council

I live in District 7. I will vote for Elena Guajardo. I have met Elena at several functions in and around San Antonio and even at a Jim’s Restaurant. Her passion and caring for the people in San Antonio were evident to me when I spoke to her. She seemed genuine and I think she will best look out for District 7.

Mayor

The more I hear about Julian Castro, the less appealing he sounds to me. It is great the Julian has a twin, Joaquin, but that does not mean that he should use Joaquin as a stand-in (via The Jeffersonian).

Of the other two major candidates, Phil Hardberger and Caroll Schubert, Phil is the better choice, in my opinion. Like the Jeffersonian, I do not vote based solely on the letter behind the candidate’s name (D, G, L, R, etc.). I like to research the candidates and vote for the candidate whose positions align more closely with my own. Like the Jeffersonian, I do not care whether someone is popular or not. What matters to me is can they do the job well.

Propositions

Here are the three propositions: Proposition 1, The Edwards Aquifer Protection Venue; Proposition 2, The Parks Development and Expansion Venue Project Proposition; and Proposition 3, Tax Freeze for the Disabled and Elderly

Proposition 3: I will vote against this proposition. Senior citizens (65 and older) already get a tax exemption on their homestead (if they claim it). This would impose another exemption. I also feel that the revenue lost would deprive our schools of needed funding. I realize that almost all seniors’ children have left the nest. Like them, I do not have any children. I still think that I, like seniors, ought to contribute to the education of future generations.

Propositions 1 and 2: I will vote for both these propositions. Proposition 1, I believe, will help protect our drinking water (which we get from the Edwards Aquifer). Proposition 2, will help protect creeks and other areas and make San Antonio a better place to live by making investing in the community.

For the Children?

Representative Robert Talton (R-Pasadena), authored Amendment 60 to the Texas Senate Bill 6. It states:

Section 264.1064c. “Notwithstanding the applicant's or foster parent's statement that the applicant or foster parent is not a homosexual or bisexual, if the department determines after a reasonable investigation that the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual the department may not: (1) allow the applicant to serve as a foster parent; (2) place the child with the foster parent; or (3) allow the child to remain in foster care with the foster parent.”

How exactly do they plan on discovering if a foster parent is gay or bisexual? Are they going to ask every foster parent? What if a foster parent says they are straight, but they are not? Who is going to pay for the questioning and investigation? What is a “reasonable investigation?” Are there so many straight foster parents in Texas that they don’t need caring gay and bisexual foster parents? What scientific evidence does Representative Talton have that gay and bisexual parents will not be just as good foster parents as straight foster parents? I would venture to say he has absolutely none.

The Austin American Statesman reports on the Amendment. Robert Talton said, "It's a learned behavior, and I think a child . . . ought to have the opportunity to be presented to a traditional family as such. And if they choose to be homosexual or lesbian, then that's their choice when they turn 18."

Hmm. Speaking from personal experience, my parents (who are very, very heterosexual – married for over 34 years) never took me to “Being Gay 101” classes. As far as I know, those classes do not exist. How is it that even though my parents never taught me anything about being gay, that I stilled turned out gay? If it is a learned behaviour, should I not be straight like my parents? I did not choose to be gay when I was 18. I knew, from a very early age (by four years of age) that I was different. I did not know the name for that difference until I was in high school. Even in high school and later, when I went off to college, I tried desperately to be what I could never be – straight.

So, despite being brought up by straight parents, who never taught me a thing about being gay, I still turned out gay. So, in my ever so humble opinion, Representative Talton is full of shit. He is a bigot who may be harbouring some thoughts of hot man-on-man action of his own. It would not surprise me if down the road I read about him being caught in some bath house or in some other compromising position.

Say It Ain’t So!

Tom Delay dishes some pretty tawdry and revealing information about one of the Supremes. No, not Diana Ross, but Justice Anthony Kennedy. Delay reveals…

And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.

Oh, my! Justice Anthony Kennedy knows how to use a computer! He can even surf the Internet! How could he! Most shocking of all, he probably knows how to use Google! Does Justice Kennedy have no shame!

Please. I think it is good that Justice Kennedy can operate a computer and surf the Web. At least he can find stuff out on his own and does not have to rely solely on his clerks to do the research for him.

Delay continued,

The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behaviour

Yeah. I guess Justice Kennedy will have to answer where he learned how to use a computer, why he feels he can do his own research, and why he feels he can use the Internets for such nefarious purposes.

Sometimes I wonder if Tom Delay even knows what a computer is, let alone how to operate one. I also wonder if he thinks before he speaks. It seems, as of late, he does not.

Run Amok

Tom Delay repeats his assertion that the judiciary has “run amok.”

Delay said:

The judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people. But I also believe the executive and legislative branches have neglected the proper checks and balances on this behavior ... Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric.

I think some of Texas’ representative need to go back and re-read the Constitution, specifically Article III. They also need to review Marbury v. Madison, which allows the right of judicial review. Yes, Congress sets up the court system (other than the Supreme Court), but just because Tom Delay cannot get his way do not mean that they are broken.

Last week, after Terri Schiavo passed away, Delay threatened:

The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.

Delay’s rhetoric continued:

Our judiciary has banned prayer in schools and evicted Christmas displays from town halls.

He was not too happy with the recent Supreme Court decision forbidding the execution of minors on death row. He said that the Supreme Court was:

…following the dictates of foreign opinion.

Finally, he said:

These are not the examples of a mature society, but of a judiciary run amok.

Mr. Delay, the courts review laws to determine their Constitutionality. In the case of school prayer, the First Amendment prohibits Congress establishing a religion. It also prohibits Congress from freely exercising their religion. Which prayer would Mr. Delay advocate in schools? A Christian one? What about those in Detroit who are Muslim? What about those in New York who are Hindu? What about those on San Francisco who are Buddhist? What about all the other religions practiced across our great nation? That is why the Supreme Court struck down school-sanctioned prayer.

The same principle applies to Christmas displays from town halls. If city halls allow Christmas displays, are the also going to allow Hanukkah displays? Are they going to allow Eid displays? What about Winter Solstice displays? Where does it stop?

Regarding the execution of teenagers on death row, Mr. Delay is a “Culture of Life” hypocrite. On one hand, he was fighting tooth and nail and politically raping Terri Schiavo for his ends. He says he wanted to keep her alive (she was more existing than alive). On the other had, he was perfectly fine killing teenagers. Yes, those teenagers committed crimes, some incredibly brutal. When has the state killing anyone proven that killing is wrong?

The scandals surrounding Tom Delay seem to be building up to a crescendo of impropriety. Trips to foreign countries paid for by lobbyists from foreign countries. Giving his wife and daughter $500,000 salaries. Ethics violations. When will enough be enough?

I truly believe what goes around, comes around. Tom Delay will get what is due to him in the end. Even his Republican allies in the House and Senate can only turn a blind eye and deaf ear for so long. Once he loses support, they will hang him out in the wind and ignore him.

Only in Texas...

MSNBC News (via Reuters) has a story about John Brown, founder of Zion Oil & Gas of Dallas. John Brown is a born-again Christian who apparently take the Bible a little too literally.

John Brown claims the Bible says Israel is sitting on oil reserves because of passages in the Bible. For instance, Deuteronomy 33:24, "Most blessed of sons be Asher. Let him be favored by his brothers and let him dip his foot in oil." Brown interprets the reference to oil to petroleum products.

While tar and pitch were known in ancient times, I think the oil discussed in the Bible is vegetable-based, rather than petroleum based. I will go out on a limb and say Deuteronomy and other parts of the Bible are more than likely talking about olive oil. In Biblical times, olive oil was used for food, cooking, and fuel for lamps. It was a pretty important liquid.

I personally don't think they will hit a huge reserve of oil. I really think they will dig nothing but dry wells. John Brown is more likely to get oil if he went to an Israeli goricery store and picked up a few bottles of olive oil.

Wow!

John Cornyn said the following on the floor of the US Senate:

…it causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions. And no one, including those judges, including the judges on the United States Supreme Court, should be surprised if one of us stands up and objects.

And, Mr. President, I'm going to make clear that I object to some of the decision-making process that is occurring at the United States Supreme Court today and now. I believe that insofar as the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policy-maker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people, it has led to the increasing divisiveness and bitterness of our confirmation fights. That is a very current problem that this body faces today. It has generated a lack of respect for judges generally. I mean, why should people respect a judge for making a policy decision borne out of an ideological conviction any more than they would respect or deny themselves the opportunity to disagree if that decision were made by an elected representative?

Of course the difference is that they can throw the rascal -- the rascal out -- and we are sometimes perceived as the rascal -- if they don't like the decisions that we make. But they can't vote against a judge because judges aren't elected. They serve for a lifetime on the federal bench. And, indeed, I believe this increasing politicalization of the judicial decision-making process at the highest levels of our judiciary have bred a lack of respect for some of the people that wear the robe. And that is a national tragedy.

And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share.

You know, it's ironic, if you look back, as we all have, being students of history in this body, all of us have been elected to other -- to other bodies and other offices and we're all familiar with the founding documents, the declaration of independence, the constitution itself, we're familiar with the federalist papers that were written in an effort to get the constitution ratified in New York state. Well, Alexander Hamilton, apropos of what I want to talk about here, authored a series of essays in the Federalist Papers that opined that the judicial branch would be what he called the -- quote -- "least dangerous branch of government." The "least dangerous branch." He pointed out that the judiciary lacked the power of the executive branch, the white house, for example, and the federal government and the political passions of the legislature. In other words, the congress. Its sole purpose -- that is, the federal judiciary's sole purpose was to objectively interpret and apply the laws of the land and in...

I wonder if Senator Cornyn is saying the violence against Judge Joan Lefkow and Judge Rowland Barnes was directly caused by the rulings they made. If he is, he has quite a bit to answer for.

I think the Senator needs to go back to school and take a civics or political science class. If he believes judges are unaccountable to the public, he is incredibly wrong. First off, the rulings judges make go through appeals. If the trial judge makes a ruling not base on law or precedent, then that ruling can be over turned upon appeal. A ruling can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says that the ruling is not based on law or precedent then they throw the case out. If they say that it is, the judgment stands. Their ruling is final – per the US Constitution.

Judges are appointed for a reason. The worry about judges who have to run for office is that somewhere down the road they may have a conflict of interest – especially if a campaign contributor broke the law. Unelected judges have less to worry about when it comes to conflicts of interest like that. If a judge issues a ruling that is so far out of bounds that ruling is likely to be overturned on appeal. If the judge does something illegal, they can be impeached. Therefore, judges are accountable for the rulings they make.

What happened to Judge Lefow’s family and Judge Barnes has no justification. Simply because the court rules against someone does not mean that defendants or plaintiffs have the right to take the law into their own hands and engage in violence. We are not some third-world drug-exporting country where the judges have to travel in armoured motorcades, sit behind bulletproof glass, and live inside fortresses. What Senator Cornyn said yesterday will give new ammunition to those who wish to take the law into their own hand and inflict retribution for the rulings a judge was well within the bounds of the law to issue.