"He who covers his sins will not prosper,
But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy."
As promised, here's our testimony from Thursday's regental confirmation hearing:
Obviously, Friday's farce of a SCOTX decision renders the first half of what we said obsolete, but speaking of said farce Cassidy the indefatigable provides the best analysis to date of what happened:
Put another way, Wallace Hall was so clearly in the right here, the only principle the Supreme Court could invent to defeat him is one that nullifies the rule of law itself. And the court still needed to completely botch a basic factual question in order to get there.Read the whole thing here.
Needless to say, the decision flew in the face of precedent, which held officials absolutely immune only when they enjoyed “absolute discretion” to decide something, a rare freedom given that officials are surrounded by laws and policies.
Yet the court purports to apply the same principle here in determining that McRaven was “unconstrained” by any law other than the one by which the board presumed to delegate him authority.
Who would want direct authority established by law, when delegated authority makes the law disappear?
Until now, the court has consistently applied the principle that “a public officer has no discretion or authority to misinterpret the law.” Yet, that is just what the court sanctioned.
Heck, if McRaven had concluded that FERPA required him to share with Hall nothing but aerial photographic surveys, this court would have shrugged and said “sure, if you say so.”
Worst of all for this case, if less relevant to the generalized destruction the court has just worked upon governance in Texas, their decision is entirely predicated upon a factual mistake.