Thursday, April 23, 2009



There is no one more anti-abortion than I am. The so called right which claims to oppose abortion actually contribute to needles abortions. I did not know until this morning that in 2006 the morning after pill was approved for over the counter sales. This was a great move forward to limit the number of abortions. With access to the morning after pill on demand, it makes it easier for states to ban all abortions based on rape or incest (non-consensual incest is rape - if it is consensual why the special privilege?).

The right has fought these type moves at every turn. We will never remove all forms of abortion. But in many cases, the morning after pill actually prevents conception. While I do believe once conception occurs you have an abortion, I also believe it is better to end it within the first 72 hours instead of after the first three months. I applaud the decision of the Obama Administration to not appeal the decision of the federal appeals court which ordered the morning after pill now be made available to 17 year olds, over the counter.

A lot of people do not understand how hard it is for some women to seek help after a rape or a regrettable one night stand. The morning after pill allows these women to seek an immediate remedy without having to deal with the police, or their doctor and face the embarassment over a one night stand.


Yesterday's Herald had an article concerning former judge Limas, and Ford Motor Company. Over 10 years ago the Texas Supreme Court set up a procedure for parties to challenge settlement agreements. They are to be treated as contract cases. The court of appeals reveresed Judge Limas's decision to not allow Ford to seek discovery in its contract case against the plaintiffs, as it related to the settlement agreement. Discovery is basic in any case.

I suspect Judge Limas never even read the briefs filed by Ford. Not all, but far too many trial judges consider legal argument to be boring and irrelevant to the golf game awaiting them the second they get out of court. On a side note, in Dallas a TV station took up the challenge on this issue and taped judges at strip joints, bars, liquer stores, golf courses, all while they were suppose to be on the bench.

Well, the people of Cameron County are done with Judge Limas. He was thrown from office.

The other judge is Rolando Olvera. Judge Olvera was faced with a plaintiff's lawyer playing hide the ball. In Texas you must disclose certain information when requested by the otherside. if you fail to disclose that information, and then try and use it at a hearing or trial, the court is to rule the information inadmissible. This is exactly what Judge Olvera did. He made it clear he will not allow his court to be used as a place where attorneys can sandbag the other side.

The Court of Appeals found that sandbagging is only illegal at the trial level, but that sandbagging is permissible during hearings. Fortunately for our constitution and the concept of fairness, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with Judge Olvera and found that sandbagging the otherside is impermissible at either the trial or hearing level. If the party has asked for the information in a proper discovery request, and the otherside has failed to disclose the requested information, hereto for they will not be allowed to use it at trial or during any hearing.

There are good judges in Cameron County. If the electorate simply does it job it can continue to remove the bad judges and replace them with good judges. In probably 95% of the cases, hearings are a waste of time. The law is black and white. The lawyers play the game because they know they have a judge who will not even read the motions or briefs, and just wing it. This costs the taxpayers millions of dollars a year in needless use of our courts.

In 95% of the cases the law is black and white. The ruling from the judge should be mechanical. Until the federal government opens the door to allow citizens to sue to remove the corrupt judges, nothing will change. The Commission on Judicial Conduct is doing a lot better job in addressing judicial corruption and going after those judges who consider the Canons of Judicial Conduct meaningless. The problem is, it is a slow process.


Anonymous said...

I agree. Limas was (is) a tool...

Any word on the report on Hector Gonzales?

El Mero Mero

Anonymous said...

I would never vote for Olvera and it has nothing to do with his ability as a judge. He may be a good judge but he is a man of flexible loyalties. Remember, when he couldn't get elected as a republican he simply switched to the democratic party to get elected. If his friends in the republican party couldn't trust him, why should I? Also, this proves up the point about yellow dog democrats. They really will vote for a republican if he just changes his banner. He doesn't have to change his philosophy. While, no doubt, Olvera is better then Limas, the lesser of two evils is still an evil.
Along these same lines, when someone ask to be elected to office there is an implied commitment to complete the term. When he/she resigns to run for a higher office (or any other office for that matter) they have negated the peoples voice. I won't vote for this person either.

BobbyWC said...

Mescalero, I agree with what you are saying, but I ask you to consider this.

If he is a good judge doing his job, is it really better to vote him out for a possible unknown?

Sometimes people have no choice but to move between the parties- We all know that as a Democrat in Cameron County you better have the support of the party or you are out - this is not good, especially when choosing judges.

The last issue is, I think we need to end the election of judges by party or by anyone being allowed to run.

My reform has been for the state to create a real Judicial College wherein candidates must complete 30additional credit hours (10 course) in judicial ethics, constitutional law, evidence, etc. Upon completion of the program they will need to pass a special test which shows their knowledge and temperment to be a good judge.

At that point they can be certified as qualified to run for office. This still allows the people to elect the judge, but with confidence they are qualified and not some political flunky of a local corrupt political machine.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...


I would have to agree with you on asking for our judges to complete an additional amount of hours in order to run. Other occupations such as nursing or even education, it is required for the individual to take an exam or earn college credit to improve professionally. If their heart is in it, then they will go through and with it and learn something along the way.

BobbyWC said...

With competent and honest judges, I believe we could easily reduce the amount of litigation in Texas by 1/3rd, but so long as you have judicial activist judges who are petty and vindictive in how they issue ruling and treat attorneys nothing will change. (federal judge Hilda Tagle, Court of Appeals Justice Linda Yanez - I actually called Yanez a liar to her face during a hearing - she responded by walking out- she knew I caught her lying and had the evidence with me - she then ordered the court reporter to destroy the record - I won the hearing because the other panel members were not willing to join her in her psychotic moment)

In exchange for the better quality judge, I would raise their salary to $200,000, and as high as $275,000 for Supreme Court Justices.

I would require an additional 45 hours of courses (15 courses) for appellate judges.

Once you get your qualifying certificate then you can run for judge. At least this way the people are voting for qualified candidates - not just some name the like

Bobby WC