Frist to pummel Dems with crucifix

[Rspaight]

That's right -- anyone who doesn't like 5% of Bush's judicial nominees, or doesn't support the "nuclear option," must hate Jesus!



Rein in our "out-of-control courts"!

I'm so proud so host these fucknuts in my state. Bolding mine.

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: April 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

Dr. Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a standstill if he does.

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

On Thursday the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith for an appellate court post to the Senate floor. Democrats say they do not intend to block Mr. Griffith's nomination.

That cleared the way for the committee to approve several previously blocked judicial appointees in the next two weeks.

The telecast also signals an escalation of the campaign for the rule change by Christian conservatives who see the current court battle as the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

But Mr. Perkins stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions.

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion.

"They were all brought about by the courts," he said.

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the rule change with conservatives statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer released an open letter calling on Dr. Frist to denounce such attacks. "The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.

[krabapple]

If Perkins thinks the bare majority that elected Bush is a 'repudiation' of the left...I think he's in for a surprise.

And too, the fact that a *conservative* Bush-appointee judge sided against the religious kooks in the Schiavo case, might give a sane man pause.

[Dob]

That's right -- anyone who doesn't like 5% of Bush's judicial nominees, or doesn't support the "nuclear option," must hate Jesus!

With the definition of "anti-Christian" newly expanded to include liberals, Democrats, filibustering Senators, and justices who dare to espouse a secular point of view, I guess anyone who isn't a Christian is, directly or indirectly, a Jesus hater.

Probably a lot of Christians aren't above suspicion either...like the ones (me) who aren't outraged over the "court-approved murder" of Terri Schiavo.

[Rspaight]

A fun thought experiment would be to replace the word "Christian" with "Islamic" and "Democrat" or "liberal" with "secularist" in the above Times article, then guess which country they're talking about.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

Religion, politics intersect in 'Justice Sunday'
Louisville church hosts rally against filibuster
By Steve Lannen
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

LOUISVILLE - Hoping to advance their cause in the secular fight over judicial nominations, high-profile conservative Christians took the stage last night at a mega-church to denounce Senate Democrats who have held up some of President Bush's judicial nominees.

The lineup of heavy hitters at "Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith" included the U.S. Senate majority leader.

Put on by the Family Research Council, the televised event at Highview Baptist Church East was expected to be seen by millions of people in churches around the nation.

Earlier yesterday, some other church leaders continued a days-long denunciation of the event. They warned of a growing "Republican theocracy" that twists God's word to fit the GOP agenda.

"Despite the fact that no one has yet to find references to the filibuster in the Bible, Republicans and their religious allies are saying that God is on their side," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners Magazine.

At Highview, the made-for-TV event was part prayer rally and part civics lesson. It was designed to reach the conservative, Christian, Red-state base that the GOP relied on for victory in the November election.

Journalists from around the nation came to cover the event, but were warned, under threat of expulsion, not to approach any of the roughly 1,700 churchgoers. Handpicked members of the church were later provided for interviews.

Telephone numbers for Democratic senators scrolled across the bottom of the TV screen, while preachers inside the sanctuary told a cheering audience that religious freedom is threatened by a liberal judiciary.

"Too often, judges have constrained our religious liberty," said the Rev. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

"This pattern of discrimination against people who have deeply held convictions for human life and the institution of marriage must come to an end," he said.

The founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, described the Supreme Court as "unelected and unaccountable," and "out of control."

"For 43 years, the Supreme Court has been on a campaign to limit religious freedom," he said. "It's all on the line. It's time to stop the filibuster."

Tell senators 'to do their job'

The filibuster is a tactic that delays votes with endless discussion. It is used to keep a slim majority from running roughshod over the minority.

The Democrats used it to block 10 of the president's more than 200 nominees to the nation's courts during Bush's first term. When the GOP was in the minority, Republicans used different tactics to prevent votes on nominees they opposed.

Although Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they do not have the 60 votes needed to kill a filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has threatened to change Senate rules to end the use of filibusters for judicial nominees. But removing the filibuster is considered such an extraordinary move that it has been referred to as the "nuclear option."

In a six-minute videotaped message, Frist said in measured tones that he would take steps to change Senate rules if Democrats persisted in filibustering nominees.

Citing the case of Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas, he urged the audience and viewers to call their senators and "tell them to do what's right. Tell them to do their job. Tell them to give the judicial nominees the up or down vote they deserve."

Critics say Frist is appealing to conservative Christians because he hopes to secure the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.

Frist has said he will give up his Senate seat at the end of his term, but has not indicated whether he will run for president.

'A Republican theocracy'

The suggestion that those who oppose Bush's nominees are attacking Christians does not sit well with everyone.

At Louisville's Central Presbyterian Church yesterday afternoon, several speakers stood in front of bright TV lights and a banner with the words "Freedom and Faith."

They said Justice Sunday was an attempt to "hijack Christianity" for political gain.

The Rev. Canon Lucinda Laird of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church described Justice Sunday as an attempt to portray right-wing conservative Christians as victims of persecution.

"There are people around this world dying for their faith, but not the radical Republican right," she said.

Other speakers described the message espoused by Justice Sunday and right-wing Christians as divisive.

"Sadly, this is not new, but a dramatic escalation in the overstepping" by Republicans in the division between religion and politics, Wallis said.

"How is that Jesus has somehow become only pro-rich, pro-war and only pro-American?" he said. "It sounds to me almost like the beginnings of a Republican theocracy."

Wallis urged progressive Christians in the audience to speak out and fight back in a "religious war" against the Religious Right.

The Rev. Joe Phelps, the pastor at Highlands Baptist Church in Louisville who spoke out against Justice Sunday last week, later said he was surprised that the organizers maintained their aggressive, partisan tone.

"They didn't back off one bit. If that's not partisan politics, I don't know what is," he said. "I think Americans everywhere need to be very afraid and should be up in arms about this."

Reach Steve Lannen in the Herald-Leader's Georgetown bureau, (502) 867-1354 or slannen@herald-leader.com.

[Patrick M]

Judicial filibusters under fire
Speakers urge action on confirmation of U.S. judges

By Andrew Wolfson
awolfson@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

From the pulpit of Louisville's Highview Baptist Church, leaders of the nation's religious right last night denounced activist federal judges and called for an end to filibusters blocking up-or-down votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.

In fiery addresses simulcast nationally over Christian radio and television stations and the Internet, a half dozen speakers denounced Senate Democrats for opposing nominees of faith, including evangelical Christians and devout Catholics.

The telecast, called "Justice Sunday -- Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith," aimed to mobilize Christians for an assault on filibusters, which Democrats have used to block 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, joined the telecast via a four-minute videotaped speech.

"Americans elect their senators to vote on the people's business. Either confirm or not confirm the nominees, but don't leave them hanging," he said. "Don't leave the courts hanging and the country hanging."

Speaking from Highview, R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, accused federal judges of misinterpreting the Constitution, just as liberal churches have misinterpreted the Bible.

"We have to exercise our Christian citizenship not just at the ballot box but all the way to the nomination and confirmation of judges," Mohler said to a standing ovation.

Highview's east campus on Shelbyville Road was packed with 1,700 members of the church and guests invited from Southeast Christian Church. Fifty-eight reporters from news organizations around the country covered the heavily publicized event.

About 100 protesters -- some in ministers' robes, many with signs -- stood along Shelbyville Road. Their demonstration followed two protest rallies earlier in the day that drew a total of more than 700 people.

The Rev. Peggy Owens, 46, of the Presbytery of Mid-Kentucky, said she braved the cold outside Highview because she found the event organizers' rhetoric to be offensive. "Christians should not throw stones at other Christians. We are sisters and brothers in Christ, all of us."

The Rev. Bruce Maples of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville gathered the protesters for prayer after about an hour.

Saying, "No one person, no one church has a lock on faith," he prayed for grace and peace and called for those involved in the telecast to "reach out in love, not anger."

In an interview, Maples said he stood outside the church because he thought it "important to say that just because we're not inside that building does not mean you are not a person of faith."

Uniformed police officers patrolled the church's lobby, and officials refused to let reporters interview members of the congregation, saying they feared someone who didn't belong might denounce the event under the guise of being a member.

The event's sponsor, the Family Research Council, a Washington-based lobbying group that promotes traditional family values, said the broadcast would be simulcast to more than 1,000 churches and a million "values voters" nationwide, in hope of rallying support for eliminating the filibuster during consideration of judicial nominees.
Democrats disagree

In fliers promoting the event, organizers accused the Senate minority of "filibustering against people of faith."

Senate Democrats have said, however, that the nominees were blocked based on their extremist positions and judicial philosophies, not on their religious beliefs.

Democrats and other critics of the event also say they can't understand why conservatives complain about the federal courts, given that most of Bush's nominees have been approved -- and that most of the federal bench has been appointed by Republican presidents.

Since Bush's election, 205 of his 215 judicial nominees, or 95 percent, have been confirmed by the Senate.

Republican appointees outnumber Democratic appointees on 10 of the country's 13 appeals courts and account for 94 of the 162 active appeals court judges.

All 10 of the Bush nominations blocked by Democrats were for appellate courts.

Last night's event and Frist's participation in it were condemned by many churches and other organizations, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, responded to such criticism last night by noting, "We are not saying that people who disagree with us are not people of faith."

But he charged that the courts "have become an enclave for those who seek to muzzle people of faith."

And to enthusiastic applause, he added, "Just because we believe the Bible is the guidepost for life shouldn't disqualify us from participating in government."

James Dobson, the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, a Christian broadcasting group, said that "the future of democracy and ordered liberty actually depends on the outcome of this struggle."

Dobson reserved his most withering attacks for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, whom he called "arrogant and imperious and determined to rewrite the laws of this country based on their biases."

He said, "Five black-robed justices can tell us how it is going to be, and there is no justice and no appeal."

Dobson blamed the high court for what he called "the biggest holocaust in history," the 44 million abortions he said have occurred since the court made the procedure legal nationwide in 1973.

As the U.S. Senate switchboard number flashed on video screens and the phone numbers of individual senators scrolled underneath, Dobson urged viewers to call their senators and to tell them "that you will remember how they vote."

Members of Kentucky and Indiana congressional delegations said on Friday that they would not be available last night to comment on the telecast.

Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate defendant who founded Prison Fellowship, a Christian ministry based in Virginia, spoke at the event by videotape, accusing the Senate minority of trying to "destroy the balance of power between the branches of government that was an important Christian contribution to the Constitution.

"We are not going to be intimidated when people tell us we are trying to impose our views," said Colson. "Pick up your phone and tell your senators we want an up-or-down vote on judges."
A literal interpretation

The 6,000-member Highview church was selected for the telecast because it is Mohler's home church.

And he delivered what may have been the most impassioned address, in which he suggested that the Constitution should be interpreted literally, just like the Bible.

Noting that the Supreme Court had struck down sodomy laws -- "finding a constitutional right to sodomy" -- Mohler asked, "Does anybody believe the framers believed in a constitutional right to sodomy?"

The audience at Highview was almost exclusively white, although a black preacher from Maryland, Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., was one of the speakers.

Two American flags flanked the stage, and propped on the stage were large photographs of some of the judicial nominees who have been blocked; one was pictured with Bush.

Former federal judge Charles W. Pickering Sr., whom Bush temporarily appointed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year while the Senate was in recess, led the Pledge of Allegiance to open the event. Pickering's nomination had been blocked by Democrats who cited his conservative record on civil rights and other issues.

Highview's senior pastor, the Rev. Kevin Ezell, made brief introductory remarks in which he said, "We are here to celebrate and to learn what we can do as Christians."

Staff writers James R. Carroll, Kay Stewart and Larry Muhammad contributed to this story.

[Dob]

That was such an awesome commercial. Look close and you can see the hammer in mid air, hurtling at the screen.

Noting that the Supreme Court had struck down sodomy laws -- "finding a constitutional right to sodomy" -- Mohler asked, "Does anybody believe the framers believed in a constitutional right to sodomy?"

Hey doofus, maybe you didn't notice, but a lot of those laws include "noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex" as sodomy. Put aside your feelings about homosexuals and ask yourself if the framers of the constitution intended for you to go to jail because you had relations with your wife in a "noncoital" fashion.

Besides that, sodomy laws break the cardinal rule -- don't make laws you can't (fairly) enforce. If you do, it opens the door wide open for "selective enforcement," which is a fancy, sanitized term for persecution. But maybe that's exactly what you're after?

[MK]

Closer look at one nominee, Priscilla Owen. I think much of the controversy surrounds her decisions on abortion, but the other stuff seems far more troublesome to me (corporate ties/conflict-of-interest in cases she presided over):

Party Affilliation. Priscilla Owen was appointed and has twice been elected to the Texas Supreme Court as a Republican. She was originally picked for the court by advisor to then-Governor Bush Karl Rove, who worked to make every one of Texas's elected seats Republican.

General Information. Anchoring the far-right end of a very conservative court, Priscilla Owen consistently supports big business and special interests against the claims of ordinary Americans. Before joining the court, Owen was a partner at the Houston firm Andrews & Kurth, where she represented primarily large corporations, including oil and pipeline interests. On the Texas Supreme Court, she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results, voting consistently to dismiss the claims of injured workers and consumers and citizens wishing to protect the environment. In addition, prior to her nomination to the Fifth Circuit, she never voted to grant a minor a judicial bypass under Texas' Parental Notification Statute. The Houston Chronicle wrote that her "interpretations [in these cases] were generally stricter and more conservative than the majority of her all-Republican colleagues" on the court. Indeed, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow Justice, called one of her dissents in a bypass case "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."1

Owen is also notoriously slow at issuing opinions and has reportedly had cases taken away from her because of her backlog. Finally, the decision to renominate Owen, after her rejection by the Senate Judiciary Committee, is indicative of a strategy on the part of Bush and his advisor Karl Rove to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judges who are prepared to implement the administration's anti-choice, pro-corporate, and anti-environment domestic agenda.2

Decisions Favoring Corporations over Injured Plaintiffs. In several recent cases, Owen has dissented from rulings by the Texas Supreme Court affecting the rights of injured individuals, and in other cases, she has written for or joined the court's right-wing majority to dismiss such claims. In some cases, her opinions had implications beyond leaving the specific plaintiff without a remedy; they were so broad as to threaten to leave entire classes of future plaintiffs with similar claims with no means of obtaining relief.

For example, in Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Toennies, Owen issued a dissenting opinion that distorted a key Texas civil rights law to make it much more difficult for employees to prove a violation of their rights.3 Her position, had it been adopted by a majority of the court, would have required employees to prove that discrimination was the sole reason for a dismissal or other action, even though the statute clearly states that discrimination must simply be "a motivating factor." Although Toennies was an age discrimination case, Owen's view, if adopted, would have weakened protections against several other forms of employment discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability.

In Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, Justice Owen authored a dissent joined by Justices Phillips, Hecht, and Enoch against awarding damages to the family of a teenager who was paralyzed when he was ejected through the car's sun roof in an accident.4 Owen took the position that the federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempted the Alvarados' common law negligence claim for Hyundai's construction of the Excel's passenger restraint system without lap belts. Owen's argument would turn the federal law, which was designed to minimize injuries and deaths from car accidents,5 into a protective measure for negligent manufacturers and a barrier to stop people from persuading car makers to employ better safety methods.

And in Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School Dist., Owen authored the opinion for a unanimous court that held constitutional a Texas tax law that allowed companies to choose between two dates to evaluate their inventory for tax purposes.6 Owen's opinion saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district, which had challenged the law that allowed companies to select the date on which their inventory would be valued, which minimized the company's tax burden. As reported in many papers, Owen had received $8,600 in campaign contributions from Enron prior to writing the opinion.7

Reproductive Rights.In every reported case to come before her prior to her nomination to the federal bench, Owen voted against permitting a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents. In many of these cases, she tried to rewrite the Texas Parental Notification Statute to create additional barriers to young women's access to abortion services. For example, in her concurrence inIn re Jane Doe 2, Owen urged the adoption of a new, made-up criterion for granting judicial bypasses: "The Court has omitted any requirement that a trial court find an abortion to be in the best interest of the minor". This is the only reasonable construction of 33.003(i).8 The statute requires only that a court determine whether parental notification is in the minor's best interest, but Owen would rewrite the statute to add a requirement that the court determine whether theabortion itself is in the minor's best interest.

Owen's Disregard For The Rights Of The Public In Environmental Cases. Owen's actions in two cases raise serious concerns about the priority she places on the government's responsibility to protect the environment and the health and safety of its citizens. In FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, Justice Owen strongly dissented from the court's decision to strike down a state law that had been tailored to allow a particular developer to bypass the city of Austin's municipal water-quality laws.9 The majority pointed out that the law illegally delegated a basic right - the right to pollute - to a private property owner. Owen's dissent was dismissed by the majority as "nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric" thus merit[ing] no response.10 Parties affiliated with the developer contributed more than $47,000 to Owen's campaign.

In her Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire, Owen named In re City of Georgetown one of her ten "most significant opinions."11 Here, her decision resulted in the withholding of important information from the public regarding government decisions related to environmental protection. Texas Citizen Action identified this decision on its list of the state's "Terrible Ten," which it stated were cases that "stripped consumers of important protections."

Owen's Ethically Questionable Actions On The Texas Supreme Court. Owen is part of a court notorious for accepting campaign contributions from parties appearing before it-including Enron and Halliburton-with its justices refusing to recuse themselves from those cases. Justice Owen has engaged in this practice, rendering decisions favorable to contributors. In 1994, Judicial Candidate Owen and Justices Hecht and Raul Gonzalez endorsed a pro-business PAC financed by many of the parties that argued before her in court. In addition, when the Travis County Attorney investigated the practice by Texas Supreme Court justices of allowing their law clerks to accept pre-employment bonuses from law firms with cases before them, Owen continued to condone such awards and dismissed the investigation as a "political issue that is being dressed up as a good-government issue."12

In addition, Owen voted in an egregious case to dismiss charges of malpractice against an attorney who, without informing his client, had rejected an offer on her behalf for full immunity, an offer that was later accepted by another of the same attorney's clients.13 The attorney at issue, who was a vocal supporter of Owen's nomination, is a partner at Hughes & Luce, a firm that donated generously to Owen's campaigns.14

Other. Priscilla Owen is a member of both the Austin and Houston chapters of the Federalist Society. Her nomination was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 5, 2002, but President Bush announced her renomination, along with that of Charles Pickering and the nominees left pending at the end of the 107th Congress, on January 8, 2003. Rejected and resubmitted once again.

1 Flood, Mary, "Judicial Nominee Takes Issue with Conservative Label", Houston Chronicle, May 10, 2001.
2 In re Jane Doe 19 S.W.3d at 377. Note that Justice Gonzales was referring to opinions by Justice Hecht and Justice Abbot as well as to Justice Owen's opinion.
3It is widely believed that Owen was recruited in 1994 by Karl Rove to the Texas Supreme Court. He served as a consultant to Owen's 1994 judicial campaign and was paid $250,000 in fees and expenses by the campaign.
4 47 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2001).
5 974 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1998).
6 "It is indisputable that Congress's overriding purpose in passing the Safety Act was to reduce traffic deaths and injuries caused by traffic accidents". In the face of this clear declaration of congressional purpose, we are unwilling to accept an overly broad notion of preemption based on uniformity that could have the effect of undercutting Congress's concern for safety. Id. at 32-5 (majority).
7 922 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1996).
8 See Mittelstadt, Michelle, "State Justice's Enron Money Draws Criticism," Dallas Morning News, January 23, 2002; Hights, Bruce, "Enron Money to Justices Just Business as Usual; Contributions Highlight Concerns About Texas' Judicial Election System," Austin American Statesman, January 28, 2002; Robison, Clay, "Impartial Politicans? Follow the Money," Houston Chronicle, January 27, 2002; and Duggan, Paul, "Coping with Enron's Largess; Donations a Source of Discomfort for Many Texas Politicians," Washington Post, February 9, 2002.
9 In re Jane Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, (2000).
10 FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868. (Tex. 2000).
11 Id. at 877.
12 In re City of Georgetown and George Russell No. 00-0453, 44 Tex. Sup. J. 434 (Tex. 2001).
13 "Bribery or Perks for Clerks?" Houston Chronicle, February 11, 2001.
14 Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, Darrell Jordan, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995).
15 Darrell Jordan authored a letter of support from past presidents of the Texas Bar Association and attended a White House press conference to counter the one held by numerous Texas groups that opposed Owen's nomination.