Wednesday, October 8, 2008


Sorry about being down. I got busy, family came to town, and my hands have been so swollen typing has become a challenge. With the pain in my left hand growing worse by the day, and near complete loss of the left side of my left hand, and no use of my thumb, I am beginning to think I should have listen to the people who told me carpal tunnel surgery rarely works.

The Collegian is reporting that Ben Neece on behalf of Joe Rubio has filed an appeal in his bid for TSC Trustee. I really did not have much hope of a Cameron County judge understanding anything which requires analysis of a constitutional issue. Judges are inherently lazy. When you hand them a legal argument with case law they tend to panic and then ignore the law. In a First Amendment case years ago in a criminal case, the judge actually said on the record that the First Amendment was too complex for him to understand so that my client would have to wait on the Court of Appeals to rule on the issue. It was not too complex for the jury. After finding my client not guilty the jury foreman told the judge his incompetence and bias was so obvious he was an embarrassment to the bench. The judge then accused the jury of not doing their job. This all played out in the news.

Anyway, I digress. Daniel Renfro who represents TSC was either asleep in law school or is devoid of a conscience. He claims the case is now moot because the election is over. It is his argument effectively that if a person cannot win this type lawsuit before the election is held they have no right to their day in court. This is not the law and any first year law student knows it. Using Renfro’s logic (there is a stretch) a woman could never file an appeal in an abortion case because she would always have had the baby before the case could go through the entire process. According to Renfro the case would be moot because the women would have already had the baby. Pretty remarkable the pro-abortion people have not thought of this?

Well they have and the courts have ruled on the issue. Mootness applies only when the issue is no longer in place and cannot repeat itself. The rule is if the nature of the issue makes it impossible to complete the process - trial through appeal - and it can repeat itself later on, it is not subject to the Mootness Doctrine. Rubio has had this problem in the past, and will have this problem in the future. It is not moot.


By chance the Dallas Court of Appeals ruled on this issue on October 6th. Judge Whittington's logic is, if you are ineligible to hold office, you can still hold office if the ballots are printed before the lawsuit is resolved. Do you beging to understand the moronic state of the Texas judiciary. You will note the cases cited by Whittington are all pre Roe v. Wade cases. It was in Roe the Supreme Court recognized the Mootness Doctrine exception I am urging.

Here the issue is not merely one election. Rubio is facing the same question as to his eligiblity over and over again. Whereas in the case in Dallas, actually out of Fort Worth - the issue of eligibility is a one time issue which in the candidate's case will not repeat itself.

Okay, hand hurting - Twilight Zone tomorrow.

No comments: