Priscilla Owen

[nclib]

Of course I'd vote 'no'. Her views are even more extreme than Scalia or Thomas.

[WalterMitty]

id vote yes.

[Richard]

Yes.

[TheresNoMoney]

All of a sudden right-wingers like activist judges!!

[nini2287]

I'd probably vote a reluctant yes, because out of the judicial nominations, she may be the best one.

[Jake]

Knowing that at least she is conservative, I'd resign myself to voting yes.

[A18]

Of course I'd vote 'no'.

Well, obviously. All you like are liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.

Anyway, no, because she's not an originalist.

[Smash255]

No

Combination of her being very conservative & an activist as well as her refusal to step aside  & recuse herself in certain cases where one of the parties involved in a case has donated (in some cases heavily) toward Owen

[The Dowager Mod]

Montgomery Independent School Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000)

Owen wrote a dissent from a 6-3 decision that upheld a lower court decision to reinstate a high school science teacher whose contract was not renewed, even though a hearing examiner found for the teacher. Gonzales joined the majority, which explained that Owen’s dissent effectively tried to rewrite the Education Code to reach a particular result favorable to the school board. The majority opinion explained that Owen’s dissent "misconceives the hearing examiner’s role" under the statute and "disregard…the procedural elements the Legislature established." Id. at 567, 568. In fact, the majority pointedly noted that by "resolving conflicts in disputed evidence, ignoring credibility issues, and essentially stepping into the shoes of the factfinder to reach a specific result, the dissenting opinion not only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a position even more extreme than that argued for by the [School] Board." Id. at 568 (emphasis added).

Alberto Gonzales spent a lot of time critisizing her when they were on the tx court together.

[J. J.]

I'd really have to look at the bulk of her opinions and conduct, before answering one way or the other.

[Sam Spade]

Heck, I voted for her in Texas, I'd obviously then vote to confirm her. (don't want to appear hypocritical) 

Democrats don't bother to run judge candidates in Texas anymore, just as an FYI to the red avatars around here, because they don't have the money or the candidate depth to do so.  Last election cycle, I think they ran one candidate in opposition for the nine judgeships of the Supreme Court.  He, of course, got massacred at election time, with a number of Democrats coming out to support his opponent.

That partially explains why she got 84% of the vote, btw.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hell no, she has serious ethical problems.

[Brandon H]

I'd consider voting no because she is too pro-corporate. I was told that Texas is the most corporate friendly court system in the country. But the right people are complaining about her, so I would probably vote yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd consider voting no because she is too pro-corporate. I was told that Texas is the most corporate friendly court system in the country. But the right people are complaining about her, so I would probably vote yes.

Hitler was a bad guy.
Now are you going to vote for Hitler?

[opebo]

No, of course not, assuming I were a Democratic senator.  Democratic senators should always vote no on Republican nominees.  Stands to reason.

[AuH2O]

The criticisms against her are greatly exaggerated and propagated primarily by non-lawyers.

Many decisions, even a majority, on all courts, have dissents. That means that judges struggle to agree on proper interpretations of the law, even when they are Republicans or Democrats, and of course if its a mix.

Owens is not an activist judge, at least by the original meaning of the word. Activist judge arose as a term to describe judges that illegally ordered actual "remedies" outside their purview-- i.e. school busing, which even Democrats mostly admitted was completely illegal.

Favoring one side over another, but operating within legal strictures, is not "activism." In fact, there is no such thing as conservative "activism" that I have ever seen. Ordering school prayer, for instance, would be an example in theory (though it would never happen).

Leftists started calling conservatives "activists" as a way to deflect attention away from the fact they were shredding the US consitution and illegally interfering with the legislatures. Any conservative that goes along with this stupid game is merely benefitting the anti-Consitutionalists that populate the Senate and various other bodies, including naturally the Supreme Court itself.

Indeed, Janice Rogers Brown, viciously attacked due to her willingness to note that Democrats do not properly  interpret law, is rather moderate both politically and judicially. Her only "activism" is in speaking out against bad judges, who of course were Democrats. Owens' situation is similar.

[opebo]

Leftists... were shredding the US consitution and illegally interfering with the legislatures.

Shredding is a loaded term.  'Interpreting differently' is the precise and accurate one.

My personal biased view is they were 'improving upon' the constitution.  After all it isn't very good on the face of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Properly interpret law'?  There is no 'proper' way, just the way you prefer, which is of course in opposition to the way others may prefer.  Your claim of an objectively correct interpretation is ridiculous.

[A18]

The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it.

[opebo]

The U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it.

In other words what you imagine that intent to be.

[A18]

No, opebo, when the text leaves you with questions, you look at the evidence. As in, Madison's notes on the constitutional convention, Senate debates, House debates, writings by the framers, actions by the framers, and historical context.

[AuH2O]

No actually, they rather clearly stated their intent. Perhaps you've heard of the federalist papers?

[opebo]

No actually, they rather clearly stated their intent. Perhaps you've heard of the federalist papers?

No.  They aren't part of the Constitution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The criticisms against her are greatly exaggerated and propagated primarily by non-lawyers.

Many decisions, even a majority, on all courts, have dissents. That means that judges struggle to agree on proper interpretations of the law, even when they are Republicans or Democrats, and of course if its a mix.

Owens is not an activist judge, at least by the original meaning of the word. Activist judge arose as a term to describe judges that illegally ordered actual "remedies" outside their purview-- i.e. school busing, which even Democrats mostly admitted was completely illegal.

Favoring one side over another, but operating within legal strictures, is not "activism." In fact, there is no such thing as conservative "activism" that I have ever seen. Ordering school prayer, for instance, would be an example in theory (though it would never happen).

Leftists started calling conservatives "activists" as a way to deflect attention away from the fact they were shredding the US consitution and illegally interfering with the legislatures. Any conservative that goes along with this stupid game is merely benefitting the anti-Consitutionalists that populate the Senate and various other bodies, including naturally the Supreme Court itself.

Indeed, Janice Rogers Brown, viciously attacked due to her willingness to note that Democrats do not properly  interpret law, is rather moderate both politically and judicially. Her only "activism" is in speaking out against bad judges, who of course were Democrats. Owens' situation is similar.

What a bunch of bullsh**t. Conservative activist rulings like Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific happen all the time.

[A18]

No actually, they rather clearly stated their intent. Perhaps you've heard of the federalist papers?

No.  They aren't part of the Constitution.

They are writings on the proper construction of the Constitution.

[AuH2O]

The criticisms against her are greatly exaggerated and propagated primarily by non-lawyers.

Many decisions, even a majority, on all courts, have dissents. That means that judges struggle to agree on proper interpretations of the law, even when they are Republicans or Democrats, and of course if its a mix.

Owens is not an activist judge, at least by the original meaning of the word. Activist judge arose as a term to describe judges that illegally ordered actual "remedies" outside their purview-- i.e. school busing, which even Democrats mostly admitted was completely illegal.

Favoring one side over another, but operating within legal strictures, is not "activism." In fact, there is no such thing as conservative "activism" that I have ever seen. Ordering school prayer, for instance, would be an example in theory (though it would never happen).

Leftists started calling conservatives "activists" as a way to deflect attention away from the fact they were shredding the US consitution and illegally interfering with the legislatures. Any conservative that goes along with this stupid game is merely benefitting the anti-Consitutionalists that populate the Senate and various other bodies, including naturally the Supreme Court itself.

Indeed, Janice Rogers Brown, viciously attacked due to her willingness to note that Democrats do not properly  interpret law, is rather moderate both politically and judicially. Her only "activism" is in speaking out against bad judges, who of course were Democrats. Owens' situation is similar.

What a bunch of bullsh**t. Conservative activist rulings like Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific happen all the time.

You're a lawyer?