Abbott appoints Career Government Lawyer as new Sec'y of State

"So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Revelation 3:16

ICYMI:

Today, Governor Greg Abbott appointed Ruth Ruggero Hughs as the acting Secretary of State.

Hughs has served as chair of the Texas Workforce Commission and was appointed by Abbott to that position in August of 2018. Of the three commissioners on the board, Hughs was charged with representing the employers in the state.

“Ruth is a proven leader who has done a tremendous job as both a commissioner and the Chair of the Texas Workforce Commission,” said Governor Abbott of his appointee in a press release.

Abbott continued, saying Hughs “has built strong relationships with the business community throughout Texas and has helped lead the way in developing the best workforce in the nation. I am proud to appoint Ruth as Secretary of State and I am confident that her experience at the Texas Workforce Commission will translate into success in this new role.”

Hughs is a career government lawyer who's been with Greg Abbott for a long time. She was with him in the Attorney General's office. He appointed her to the Workforce commission. Now she's his Sec'y of State appointee.

Career government lawyers tend to be cautious, risk-averse, and controversy shy.

Obviously, in a political environment where the left is going to pull out all stops, that's a worrisome combination.

In fairness to Hughs, the one time she was involved in something controversial, she pretty much told the left to pound sand.  It was an obscure regulatory fight involving how the state classifies people who partner with sharing economy companies.  If she can recognize when labor unions are trying to shakedown Uber, perhaps she'll recognize election related shenanigans.

But it's an open question.

The truth is that we don't know, and by the time we do know, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

Bottom Line: Missed opportunity.

"Sick Leave" Lawsuit: #atxcouncil's Pathetically Weak Case produces Surprisingly DECENT Rulings

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?!?"
Matthew 20:15

Late this afternoon, Travis County [Democrat] District Judge Tim Sulak predictably ruled against a temporary injunction of the city's of Austin's pending "sick leave" entitlement...but a couple of subsequent rulings were a gigantic rebuke to the city's case.

At issue were various motions by the respective parties to have "interveners" (ie. fancy lawyer term for third parties who join a lawsuit) removed from the case.   The plaintiffs (ie. TPPF and their clients) sought to have the "Workers Defense Project" removed as interveners in the case.  The Defendent (ie. the City) sought to have the Attorney General's office removed.  Judge Sulak granted the plaintiff's motion while denying the defense's.  In other words, a Liberal Democrat Judge in Travis County just ruled that Workers "Defense" Project could not proceed on the case, but that KEN PAXTON's office can.  You read that correctly.  That really happened.

It's impossible to overstate how HUGE Worker's "Defense" Project thrown off the case is.  For the (blessedly) uninformed, Worker's "Defense" Project are the socialist storm troopers who've been pushing this entitlement since Day 1.  They're also Greg Casar's former employer.  They're side by side with Casar in everything he does.  Today's ruling was a direct rebuke to Greg Casar!  And by a liberal Democrat Judge, no less! (But the Attorney General's office can stay....)

As for the rest of the case, it went as expected.  Judge Sulak denied the temporary injunction.  But in the process it exposed how bad the city's legal argument is.  The City is arguing that they passed a benefit mandate, not a wage mandate.  They're then arguing that the state law in question only applies to "wages."  Thus, there's no conflict with state law.  Even a non-lawyer can understand the hair-splitting stupidity of that argument.  The city lawyer even had to admit there was no case law to back up his claim the state didn't have authority to intervene.

It's also worth noting that the city seems determined to gaslight the financial impact of this ordinance upon the defendants.  At one point, the city's attorney called such expenses the "cost of doing business," not "injury."  He later made a bizarre analogy between the so-called "sick leave" entitlement and paying parking meters.  And that's on top of their various acts of gaslighting yesterday.

This case is headed to the 3rd Court of Appeals.  The exact details of how that will transpire remain to be seen.  Both sides have grounds to appeal aspects of today's rulings.

Bottom Line: Coming from a liberal Democrat judge in Travis County (Tim Sulak no less), today's rulings were better than expected.