Branch offers reminder why (recent issues notwithstanding) Paxton was the better choice

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."
Matthew 7:15

Wasn't expecting this:

AUSTIN (KXAN) — During a one-on-one interview with KXAN earlier this month, indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, now the subject of an FBI investigation into allegations of bribery and misuse of office, was asked why the public should trust him as the state’s top law enforcement official.

“Look at what we’re doing with Google,” Paxton explained, when listing his accomplishments.

Paxton was referring to an antitrust lawsuit against Google that his office has been preparing for more than a year. Texas joined the Trump administration’s antitrust lawsuit against Google in October.

In an open letter sent to the Dept. of Justice on Tuesday, a group of Texas leaders, including former members of Congress, academic leaders, mayors, and a former state supreme court justice, criticized the use of antitrust laws against Google and warned of the potential harm the effort could cause Texans.

....

Dan Branch, a former member of the Texas House, said Texas policymakers have an opportunity to reform antitrust laws to fit technology companies in the 21st century.

Branch, a Republican, lost to Paxton in the primary runoff for attorney general in 2014. He said he has concerns about censorship and free speech within the tech industry, but added that the antitrust lawsuit is a different issue.

“We’re known as a business-friendly state, that’s part of our moniker,” Branch said. “We shouldn’t be out leading the charge on litigation, we ought to be leading the charge on thoughtful reform.”

Translation: Coming from Dan Branch, the phrase "thoughtful reform" means "opportunity for crony capitalism and graft."

We've always been ambivalent about this particular lawsuit. We don't have a problem with it, but neither do we think it will accomplish its intended goals. It won't have much impact on Google one way or the other.

But the idea that you should avoid such a lawsuit because it will hinder your ability to extract legisaltive graft...tells you what you need to know about Dan Branch.

That gets to something else about which we've recently been pondering.

It's not a secret that this website was...rather outspoken in support of Ken Paxton in 2014. Since Paxton's recent issues came into play, we've been thinking back to that period. A lot.

We can't shake the conclusion that, whatever Paxton's subsequent shortcomings, his opponent at the time really was that much worse.

Now Dan Branch, obligingly, reminds us why.

So, yeah, Paxton's recent issues might be pretty bad...but no ragerts re: 2014.

Bottom Line: None of this is surprising, but it is illuminating given recent developments.

#TXLEGE: Overton Window moving on Paxton impeachment

"Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:20

Ross Ramsey this morning:

In a political environment like Washington, D.C., the kinds of legal perils encircling Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton might be grounds for firing, impeachment or congressional investigation.

....

Because state lawmakers have gone through two full legislative sessions with an indicted attorney general, it doesn’t seem likely that they would consider impeachment. Paxton is hardly the first elected official in Texas to continue to serve while indicted. He’s not even the first attorney general in modern times: Jim Mattox, who served from 1983-91, was indicted and acquitted on commercial bribery charges early in his first term. Legislators let it play out in the courts. Mattox was reelected once and later ran unsuccessfully for governor and the U.S. Senate.

Impeaching someone in Texas isn’t like impeaching someone in Washington, D.C. It’s rarer, for one thing, and it has immediate consequences in a way that the federal system does not. The person being impeached is removed from office while the case is pending in Texas; in the federal system, they remain in office unless convicted by the Senate.

So what does that mean here? If a state official was impeached by the Texas House, they would be removed from office until after the Senate had held a trial and judged the House’s impeachment. It’s right there in the Texas Constitution: “All officers against whom articles of impeachment may be preferred shall be suspended from the exercise of the duties of their office, during the pendency of such impeachment. The governor may make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy, occasioned by the suspension of an officer until the decision on the impeachment.”

Honestly, what's interesting isn't (yet) the merits or demerits of impeaching Paxton [Note: We're currently ambivalent]. It's about the fact that, by bringing this possibility into serious discussion, the Texas Tribune has changed the macro-environment. Expect more of this.

Bottom Line: This topic isn't going away anytime soon.

How did the Democrats not make Paxton a campaign issue?!?

"Wisdom is found on the lips of him who has understanding,
But a rod is for the back of him who is devoid of understanding."
Proverbs 10:13

For most of October, we ran a quiet test of Texas Democrats' political competence: Would they make Ken Paxton's various "alleged" misdeeds a campaign issue?!?

They didn't.

It's astounding when you think about it:

• Right wing, Christian conservative elected official (who you already hate) is accused of bribery and adultery a month before the election.

• His closest friends and allies have either abandoned him or have him on **VERY** thin ice

• .As an opposition party, you claim to be making your biggest push in decades.

And yet, for all that, the Democrats let Paxton slide.

It doesn't take a genius to imagine the political ads: "Texas doesn't need corrupt Republicans like Ken Paxton and Craig Goldman/Morgan Meyer/Jeff Leach/etc. vote for [Insert Democrat candidates name here]." There's got to be stock photos or b-reel footage of all of the afore mentioned officals with Paxton. It's also the perfect topic for mailers.

This is Politics 101 type stuff when a member of the other party is enmeshed in scandal.

Texas Democrats didn't do any of it.

But, you know, let's have another ten zillion ads about "pre-existing conditions" and silly hysteria about "voter supression" in Harris County.

Bottom Line: If you're curious why Texas won't go blue anytime soon, this is a pretty good example.

Roy's condemnation of Paxton certainly seems significant

"He who covers his sins will not prosper,
But whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy."
Proverbs 28:13

[Note: We'll be travelling out state for the next several days, publication will resume next week...probably.]

Hoo boy:

For the good of the people of Texas and the extraordinary public servants who serve at the Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Ken Paxton must resign.

The allegations of bribery, abuse of office, and other charges levied against him by at least 7 senior leaders of the Office of the Attorney General are more than troubling on the merits. But, any grace for him to resolve differences and demonstrate if the allegations are false was eliminated by his choice instead to attack the very people entrusted, by him, to lead the office – some of whom I know well and whose character are beyond reproach.

The work of the Office of the Attorney General of Texas is too critical to the state and her people to leave in chaos and to risk the work of over 700 lawyers managing almost 30,000 legal cases at any given moment, including major cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as processing over $4 Billion in Child Support.

The Attorney General deserves his days in court, but the people of Texas deserve a fully functioning AG’s office.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

Notice that line: "[Paxton's] choice instead to attack the very people entrusted, by him, to lead the office – some of whom I know well and whose character are beyond reproach."

Given Chip Roy's background in the AG's office, this almost certainly means that Roy spoke to all parties involved and decided the accusers are more credible than Paxton. We don't know that for a fact. But consider it a strong educated guess.

Regardless, this ain't good.

Bottom Line: Buckle up....

Paxton rapidly running out of time to address the allegations

"In You, O Lord, I put my trust;
Let me never be ashamed;
Deliver me in Your righteousness."
Psalm 31:1

Obviously, all sorts of accusations surfaced about Ken Paxton over the weekend.

There's a lot we'd like to say. But we can't. Suffice to say, we're talking about the same FBI as the one that gave us Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Be that as it may, one thing is obvious: The ship is about to sail on Paxton politically.

He needs to openly and publicly address these allegations. Ideally today. Certainly, no later than tomorrow.

Furthermore, for his own sake, he really ought to do so through media outlets that have traditionally been hostile (ie. the DMN or the Trib).

But this slow drip is killing him.

Bottom Line: Perceptions aren't set yet, but they are well into the process of hardening.

#TXLEGE: Paxton sets up lege to do something Amazing (they probably won't)

"Understand, you senseless among the people;
And you fools, when will you be wise?"
Psalm 94:8

Wall St. Journal yesterday:

The Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, plans to release an advisory opinion soon that could help free public employees who are fed up with their union. In 2018 in Janus v. Afscme, the Supreme Court said that union fees couldn’t be deducted from the paycheck of a government worker who didn’t “affirmatively consent.”

The question is what flows from this logic. Last fall Alaska Governor Michael Dunleavy, citing Janus, signed an order to let state workers quit the union anytime, instead of only during 10 enchanted days once each year. Union members also would have to refresh their consent forms periodically. Those changes are on hold pending a legal challenge.

Mr. Paxton’s advisory opinion takes a similar tack. In Texas, it explains, public unions “serve as a middleman” by circulating and then submitting the dues authorizations for state workers: “State agencies appear to have no independent method of confirming that an employee knowingly and voluntarily consented to the payroll deduction without any coercion or improper inducement.”

One solution, the opinion says, would be for the state to take fee authorizations directly from each employee. Mr. Paxton evaluates some suggested waiver verbiage, under which a public worker would certify: “I recognize that I have a First Amendment right to associate, including the right not to associate. . . . I am not compelled to pay a labor organization any money as a condition of employment, and I do not have to sign this consent form.”

Even then, Mr. Paxton says, a waiver can’t be presumed to last forever: “A one-time, perpetual authorization is inconsistent with the Court’s conclusion in Janus that consent must be knowingly and freely given.” The expiration date for such consent is an open question, the opinion says. But if the waivers were made valid for “one year from the time given,” a court would probably agree that’s “sufficiently contemporaneous to be constitutional.”

This sounds AWESOME...unfortunately:

Mr. Paxton’s advisory opinion isn’t binding....The Legislature, which ultimately controls the deduction framework for state and local workers, should heed Mr. Paxton’s call, too, once lawmakers convene in January.

Yeah, that won't happen.

But it's a nice thought.

Bottom Line: Paxtoni's certainly correct on the legal argument, but if the lege had any intention of addressing union dues, they would have done so EONS ago.

Paxton's so-called "Price Gouging" crusade keeping 750,000 Surgical Masks in Limbo

"He who sows iniquity will reap sorrow,
And the rod of his anger will fail."
Proverbs 22:8

This was completely predictable:

HOUSTON — As Texas Medical Center hospital workers and first responders are dealing with a critical shortage of personal protective equipment, there are 750,000 medical-grade masks sitting in a Houston warehouse in limbo.

The masks were up for auction until Tuesday when a stop was placed on their distribution due to allegations of price gouging by the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

The auctioneer said he is now caught in the middle and wants someone to tell him what he is supposed to do with nearly a million masks.

....

Worstell received a demand letter from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Office on March 20, instructing him to discontinue all sales of the masks.

The letter accuses Worstell of price gouging during an emergency.

Worstell said he has been calling the investigator to find out what he is supposed to do with all of the masks now that the auction is closed.

He said nobody will call him back.

“We’re just waiting on the attorney general’s office,” Worstell said. “Can we let these facemasks go to the people who desperately need them, or can we not?”

KHOU called the Texas Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday to find out what the auctioneer should do with the critical PPE now in his possession.

The AG's Office could not confirm or deny any ongoing investigations, a spokeswoman stated in an emailed response, which states the office has received a total of nearly 2,200 COVID-19-related price gouging complaints.

Worstell said he’s cooperated with the Houston Police Department which came to his business to create a report and take photographs.

Without answers, Worstell is sitting and waiting with 750,000 medical masks.

We took Paxton to task on this topic during Hurricane Harvey and stand by everything we said back then.

This time, however, is worse.  This crisis isn't going away for awhile.  And we're obviously going to need new suppliers to enter this space.  Paxton's actions are a GIGANTIC red flag for potential new suppliers.

It's what people in the business world call "political risk."

Bottom Line: Paxton tends to be one of the better elected officials.  But right now he's responsible for a politically created shortage of needed medical supplies.  Knock it off.  Now.

-------

Texas Attorney General: (512) 463-2100
E-mail form.
Twitter: @KenPaxtonTX.

Creative Lawyering for Good

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

Ross Ramsey this morning:

Ken Paxton is one lucky duck. The Texas attorney general was asked the kind of friendly, easy question that allowed him to twist the nose of an organization he doesn’t like under cover of state law.

It’s not a secret that Paxton is opposed to abortion. That opposition has long been a centerpiece of his campaigns as he rose from the Texas House to the Senate to his current position. It’s hard to imagine that he wants Planned Parenthood to have more resources.

And given a chance to say that a new state law creates an obstacle to some of that organization’s funding, he grabbed it.

The question posed to the state’s top lawyer was whether Planned Parenthood can continue to be one of the beneficiaries of the State Employee Charitable Campaign. State workers who sign up for the voluntary campaign give a little bit of money from each paycheck to the program, which then distributes the money to charities chosen from an approved list.

This is so great.

SB 22, as it passed, did nothing.  It was one of those fake pro-life bills that the lege likes to pass.  It creates the appearance of being pro-life, without actually doing anything.

The stated purpose of SB 22 was to crack down on practices by the City of Austin.  Of course, the City found a loophole almost instantly.   In other words, the lege wasn't able to accomplish even the stated objective of this watered down bill.

Thanks to Ken Paxton, however, it looks like something useful will come out of the effort.

Bottom Line: It's a small win.  But it's a win in an area that previously would have been a loss.  Kudos Ken Paxton.

Rats Flee Sinking Ship of Paxton Prosecution

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

Having had their taxpayer shakedown denied (all over again), Lauren McGaughy reports the predictable shoes dropping:

AUSTIN — One of the three attorneys pursuing criminal charges against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has stepped down from the case.

Last week, Nicole DeBorde filed a motion to withdraw from the case just a week after the state's top court thwarted the special prosecutors' attempts to retain their $300-an-hour pay rate. The presiding judge, Robert Johnson of Harris County, granted her request on June 26, according to court documents.

"As a result of a series of professional obligations over the past several months, the undersigned can no longer devote the requisite time and attention to discharging her duties as an Attorney Pro Tem in these matters," DeBorde wrote. "The undersigned has obtained the consent of her fellow Attorneys Pro Tem to her withdrawing in these matters."

This should surprise nobody.  Ken Paxton has already been cleared on identical federal charges.   We already know there was no underlying crime.  The only reason this case has continued to this point is because of the perverse incentives created by the special prosecutors fee structure.

With the fee structure removed, the special prosecutors have no incentive to continue the case.

Bottom Line: Lawyers who are confident in their case aren't afraid to work on a contingency basis....

Paxton Prosecutors' SHAKEDOWN DENIED (All Over Again)

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

Some good news:

After mulling the question for nearly six months, the nine Republican judges on Texas’ highest criminal court will not reconsider their 2018 ruling that threatens to imperil the criminal case against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In November, a fractured Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a six-figure payment to the special prosecutors appointed to take Paxton to trial for felony securities fraud fell outside legal limits for what such attorneys may be paid. A month later, the attorneys asked the high court to reconsider that decision in a spirited legal filing that went unanswered until this week.

....

Payments for special prosecutors are based on strict fee schedules, but judges are permitted to approve payments outside those strictures in unusual circumstances, as a North Texas GOP judge did for the prosecutors in the Paxton case. But after Jeff Blackard, a Paxton donor, sued in December 2015, claiming that the fees were exorbitant, the Dallas Court of Appeals voided the prosecutors’ invoice and the payment has been in question. Meanwhile, the trial has been derailed again and again.

Wednesday’s ruling threatens the long-delayed prosecution of Texas’ top lawyer as the prosecutors — unpaid for years — have signaled they may withdraw from the case if they cannot be paid.

As we explained last fall, the prosecutors' intransigence on this payment issue was a tell for the weakness of their case.  Had they brought Paxton to trial, and obtained a conviction, nobody would object to their invoice.  Lawyers who are confident in their case are ALWAYS willing to work on a contingency basis.

Bottom Line: This travesty should have been shut down years ago.

Greg Abbott should Party with This Guy

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
John 8:24

LOL:

Texas Attorney General will investigate San Antonio’s ban on Chick-fil-A at their airport. The ban has the stench of religious discrimination against Chick-fil-A. ⁦@KenPaxtonTX⁩ #txlege https://t.co/W8AKypXozB

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) March 28, 2019

We'd originally planned to write a full blog post ridiculing this disgraceful and embarrassing spectacle, but this gem from 2012 says it better than we ever could:

[Note: If you don't understand why Texas' Republican elected officials actions related to Chick fil a are a disgraceful and embarrassing spectacle, you're part of the problem.]

Throngs fill #Chick-fil-A on Appreciation Day--this could foreshadow a November to remember. http://t.co/9dm8M5gw #tcot

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) August 2, 2012

Spoiler alert:

Bottom Line: If they go down this path, they're going to deserve what they get....

Paxton forces Travis County (Democrat) Judge to rebuke LAWLESS City of Austin!!!

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Gnarly:

The City of Austin violated state law by banning licensed handgun holders from entering City Hall with firearms, a Travis County District Court judge ruled today.

Judge Lora Livingston of the 261st Civil District Court fined the city $1,500 for each of six instances in which investigators with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office were denied entry to City Hall. The total fine was $9,000.

Paxton's office sued after Central Texas Gun Works owner Michael Cargill filed a complaint with the AG's office saying he had been denied entry to city hall on several occasions.

Livingston cited a provision of Texas law that bans any state agency or political subdivision of the state from prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns in government buildings with a few exceptions, including at open government meetings or in government courts. The city had argued it should be allowed to ban guns from the building because it “maintains office space for court personnel.”

....

“The city of Austin cannot violate the open carry law or any other law the Texas Legislature has enacted simply because they disagree with it,” Paxton said in a statement after the ruling.

Bottom Line: You know the violation of the law is FLAGRANT when a Travis County judge is forced to side with Ken Paxton and Michael Cargill over the City of Austin!!!

#TXLEGE: Some subtle, positive, signs from Bonnen

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

Nobody's surprised Dennis Bonnen was elected speaker yesterday, but a couple moves he made shortly thereafter were very interesting.

First, did you notice who's sat behind Bonnen as he gave his acceptance speech?!?

Jeff Leach and Stephanie Klick.

If Jeff Leach and Stephanie Klick were invited to sit behind the speaker as he addressed the body, that means conservatives are no longer shut out of the speaker's office.  It doesn't necessarily mean we get everything we want.  But it does mean we're no longer being artificially shut out.

After the House adjourned, Bonnen then attended Ken Paxton's swearing in ceremony (as the picture above attests).

It wasn't anything Bonnen said or did at the Paxton event...but the fact that he was there spoke volumes.

Put differently: Can you imagine Dennis Bonnen's predecessor showing up at a Ken Paxton event?!?

Subtle, but huge.

Bottom Line:  A lot of work remains...but for the first time in a long time it looks like that work might not be pointless.

Paxton prosecutors pound table to preserve taxpayer funded gravy train

"For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life."
Galatians 6:8

They've already lost, but they never stop:

In a fiery filing that amounts to a legal Hail Mary, the attorneys appointed to prosecute Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton implored the state’s highest criminal court to take the unusual step of considering their case again because last month’s opinion yielded “a patently absurd result.”

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in November that a six-figure payment originally approved for the special prosecutors was outside legal limits — a move that boosted Paxton and threatened to derail the case against him, as the prosecutors had indicated they might withdraw if they could not be paid. A month later, the prosecutors have asked the court to reconsider their decision in a crucial case “where the ‘x’ axis of justice and the ‘y’ axis of politics intersect.”

Rehearing, they argued in a filing last week, is critical for ensuring that the high court’s proceedings “appear fair to all who observe them.”

....

In the motion for rehearing, which includes references to Atticus Finch, Shakespeare, Gilbert & Sullivan and the impending “Sword of Damocles,” the prosecutors implore the state’s highest criminal court to take the unusual step of considering their case again because last month’s opinion yields “a patently absurd result” that would pay the special prosecutors “unconscionable” rates.

The word "unconscionable" that tells you what you need to know.   The Court of Criminal Appeals' decision might be misguided or short sighted for any number of reasons.  But it doesn't take a genius to see how the court could reach its decision in good conscience.  To use the word "unconscionable" illustrates the prosecutors'...high sense of self regard.

Bottom Line: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.  If the law is one your side, pound the law.  If neither is on your side, pound the table.  Clearly, the special prosecutors are pounding the table.

-------

That being said, the full filing from the prosecutors is hilarious; we highly recommend reading the whole thing:

Brian Wice is silly by on Scribd

#TXLEGE: Texas' Obamacare Victory Opens INTRIGUING Possibilities

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

Via Lauren McGaughy:

AUSTIN — Gov. Greg Abbott said Texas will work to pass its own health care law to replace the Affordable Care Act if it's ultimately struck down in the courts.

After Friday's ruling by a Fort Worth judge that struck down the federal health care law, Abbott said Monday he will consult with the Trump administration on immediate next steps while state lawmakers and regulators fashion their own plan to succeed it.

"As the ACA lawsuit goes through the appellate process, Texas will work with the administration to get appropriate waivers from federal law allowing insurers to provide coverage at lower rates while ensuring that Texans with pre-existing conditions continue to have access to quality health care," Abbott said.

"Additionally, Texas will begin the process of reforming state regulations and proposing changes to laws that will achieve those same goals. Importantly, Texas will strive to expand health care insurance coverage, reduce the cost of health care and ensure that Texans with pre-existing conditions are protected."

Abbott then tweeted Texas would "be ready with replacement health care insurance that includes coverage for preexisting conditions."

....

"It's time to get started now, not to wait for the ultimate outcome of this case," Rob Henneke, general counsel of the Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation, said in a call with reporters Monday morning. When Texas lawmakers convene their 2019 session in January, he said, they should be "looking at the issue of pre-existing conditions. We need to look at ways of creating guaranteed-protection pools."

Henneke added that states should prioritize "market-based solutions but also regulations that will provide for choice."

Good.  The Texas GOP's lack of vision on health care has been driving this author insane for several years.  This is true at both the state and federal levels.

Obviously, the medical establishment will fight reform.  But...so what?!?  In the language of godawful Capitol euphemisms, now is the time to "begin the conversation."

Then there's the fact that, you know, lack of vision on health care played a role in the Texas GOP's loss of standing with suburban voters.

Bottom Line: Last friday's ruling offers the Texas GOP an opportunity to make tangible progress towards health care freedom.  They should take it.  They might even discover voters like those sorts of things....

Texas [Insert Health Care Pun] against Obamacare!!!

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart."
Galatians 6:9

FANTASTIC:

Fort Worth-based U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor on Friday ruled that a major provision of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional — and that the rest of the landmark law must fall as well.

In February, a Texas-led coalition of 20 states sued the federal government to end the health care law in its entirety, arguing that after Congress in December 2017 gutted one of its major provisions, the rest of the law was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the law because its individual mandate — a financial penalty for not having insurance — could be interpreted as a tax. But after Congress set that tax at $0, the Texas coalition claimed the rest of the law no longer had “constitutional cover.”

O’Connor sided with Texas, ruling that the individual mandate was rendered unconstitutional. That portion of the law, he argued, is not severable from other provisions, and so the rest of the law must fall.

Honestly, this should be a no-brainer.  Obamacare was originally upheld as a tax.  That tax is gone.  Case closed.

That being said, don't ever underestimate John Roberts' willingness to invent rationalizations for this wretched law.  That's why the "tax" argument emerged in the first place.  It will be interesting to see into what new intellectual pretzels John Roberts might twist himself.

TPPF has more:

“Today’s historic win striking down Obamacare is only the first step,” said Robert Henneke, general counsel and director of the Center for the American Future at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “We need to focus on the future and look to states like Texas to lead in restoring the relationship between doctor and patient, unencumbered by government and insurance company red tape. Let’s focus on solutions that will drive down costs and restore choice in doctor.”

Please, make it so.

Bottom Line: Health care freedom requires an unencumbered relationship between consumers and providers.  Yesterday's ruling was a necessary, but insufficient, step in that process.  Kudos to Paxton and TPPF!!!

With Election Over, Appeals Court Confirms what Honest People already knew about Paxton Prosecution

"Do not go hastily to court;
For what will you do in the end,
When your neighbor has put you to shame?"
Proverbs 25:8

[Note: The Trib also has a write up here.]

Via Lauren McGaughy:

AUSTIN — More than three years after he was indicted, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is celebrating a major court ruling that will further delay his criminal fraud trials.

On Wednesday morning, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled the prosecutors pursuing charges against Paxton should have been paid a fixed, not hourly, rate. Their compensation broke local rules and state law, the court said, adding a six-figure invoice the prosecutors submitted for their work on the case need not be paid.

The prosecutors have threatened to step down if they lost this fight, forcing the state to look for new attorneys who’ll agree to pursue charges against the state’s sitting attorney general.

Well...duh.  This case has always been a corrupt quid pro quo between Paxton's political enemies and the special prosecutors.  Even if Paxton was ultimately exonerated, his political opponents would get to drag his name through the next election.  Likewise, even if Paxton was ultimately exonerated, the prosecutors would be able to get rich at taxpayer expense.

Furthermore, if the prosecutors had any confidence in their case, they would have proceeded a long time ago.  Had they obtained a conviction, nobody would have objected to their invoice.  But it's hard to have confidence in obtaining a conviction when similar civil charges have already been dismissed twice.  On the other hand, if your real objective was to use innuendo to drag Paxton's name through the mud until his re-election, events make total sense.

Bottom Line: We'll take the win, but it would have been nice if this completely obvious conclusion had been announced before the election....

Another whack at Obamacare

"Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their masters,
As the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress,
So our eyes look to the Lord our God,
Until He has mercy on us."
Psalm 123:2

Good:

FORT WORTH, Texas (KXAN) — On Wednesday, Republican attorneys general will take the latest stab at dismantling the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading the fight Democratic attorneys general over whether the government can require health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

They faced off Wednesday in front of Fort Worth-based U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor. The GOP AGs are asking for a preliminary injunction, meaning they want the law to be put on hold while the case moves through court. This case will likely be in front of the Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future.

....

However, when the GOP took over Congress in 2016, they repealed the penalty for people without insurance, called the "individual mandate".

Without that measure, 18 Republican Attorney Generals sued the Federal Government over the ACA because the reason it was found constitutional was no longer there.

It's an open question whether Paxton's lawsuit will be successful, but with the new and improved Fifth Circuit, why not take a shot?!?

Bottom Line: You miss 100% of the shots you don't take....

Poll: 28% of Texas Voters Have "NEVER HEARD OF" the Sitting Attorney General

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being priest for Me;
Because you have forgotten the law of your God,
I also will forget your children."
Hosea 4:6

Mike Bacelice is an establishment Republican pollster.  He recently polled the November general election.  Most of the results were about what you'd expect.  But one ASTONISHING finding stood out:

Four years into his term, 28% of Texas voters have "never heard of" Ken Paxton.

How is that possible?!?

Love him or hate him [Note: Obviously, this website LOVES him], Ken Paxton is constantly in the news.  He's not a low profile Attorney General.  Yet, apparently, 28 % of Texas voters have "never heard of" him.

Furthermore, think about these numbers in light of the pending criminal case.  Obviously, this website's opinion about that fiasco are well known.  But it's still an opportunity for the general public to build name recognition.  Yet, even in light of the criminal case, 28% of Texas voters have "never heard of" Ken Paxton.

Bottom Line: If you want to understand why society is in the state in which it currently finds itself...the fact that 28% of Texas voters have "never heard of" a major statewide elected official would be a good place to start.

On Redistricting, Paxton secures Temporary Reprieve from CONGRESSES. ONGOING. FAILURE....

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28

First things first, some very good news:

Attorney General Ken Paxton today released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Texas’ House and congressional redistricting maps, except with respect to one Texas House District (HD 90):

“I’m grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court restored the rule of law to the redistricting process. The court rightly recognized that the Constitution protects the right of Texans to draw their own legislative districts, and rejected the misguided efforts by unelected federal judges to wrest control of Texas elections from Texas voters,” Attorney General Paxton said. “This is a huge win for the Constitution, Texas, and the democratic process. Once again, Texans have the power to govern themselves.”

Last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in San Antonio invalidated two of Texas’ 36 congressional districts (27 and 35) and multiple state House districts. Attorney General Paxton appealed the rulings to the high court, which heard oral arguments in the case on April 24.

When the Supreme Court put the lower court decisions on hold last September, it meant that no changes to Texas’ redistricting maps would be made ahead of the midterm elections. Attorney General Paxton argued at the time that allowing maps to be redrawn would throw “the Texas election deadlines into chaos for the second time this decade.”

Awesome!  The ruling on redistricting was undeniably good.  Kudos to the Attorney General's office and Attorney General Paxton specifically.

But...this is temporary.

In 2020, we're going to do redistricting again.  And, when that happens, we should expect several more rounds of these types of lawsuits.  Unless, of course, Congress does its job.

As we have pointed out over and over and over and over again, CONGRESS.  HAS.  THE.  AUTHORITY.  TO.  PERMANENTLY.  SHUT.  DOWN.  THESE.  REDISTRICTING.  LAWSUITS.

But NOTHING from any of the Republicans in Texas' Congressional delegation; likewise, nothing from any candidates running for Congress.

Bottom Line: Ken Paxton, along with the entire Attorney General's office, deserves tremendous credit for this victory...but it sure would be nice if Congress would render these lawsuits obsolete.