What's wrong with Bush judicial nominee Priscilla Owen?

[Czolgosz]

I understand that Judge Priscilla Owen may become one of the focal points of the filibuster showdown so I became curious about the Judge who Bush nominated for a federal appeals court in 2001.

Here is what her own Republican colleagues have written about Judge Owen's judicial opinions since 2001:

In the case of In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001), Republican Judge Abbot (where three other Republican Judges also refused to join Judge Owen’s opinion) criticized her judicial activist opinion against open government as follows: “he Legislature enunciated a clear and unambiguous policy statement: ‘t is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.’ Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001(a). The Act ‘forcefully articulates a policy of open government.’ A & T Consults., Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668, 675 (Tex. 1995). To effectuate this policy, the Legislature mandated that the Act ‘shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.’ Tex. Gov't Code § 552.001(b). But if this Court has the power to broaden by judicial rule the categories of information that are ‘confidential under other law,’ then is eviscerated from the statute. . . . This not only contradicts the spirit and language of , it guts it. . . . t is within the Legislature’s province to make that call. We are bound to apply the statute’s words as written . . . . Today, abandons strict construction and rewrites the statute.”

In the case of Barnett v. Barnett, 67 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2001), Republican Judge Enoch filed a separate opinion which noted her judicial activism as follows: “I do not join discussion about federal common law. . . because the parties neither brief nor argue the point.” Republican Judge Hankinson (joined by three other Republican Judges) was more direct in the criticism of Judge Owen’s activist opinion favoring insurance companies: “ broad holding ignores not only the lack of clear and manifest proof that Congress intended ERISA to preempt state marital-property law, but also the United States Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions that ERISA will not be lightly interpreted to preempt areas of longstanding, traditional state regulation. does precisely what Justice Scalia has cautioned against: ‘decree a degree of pre-emption that no sensible person could have intended.’”

In the case of In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), Republican Judge Hankinson (where three other Republican Judges also refused to join with Judge Owen) noted the judicial activism in her opinion leaving children in the possession of violent, cocain-using, child-abusive parents as follows: “ states the issue in this case as ‘whether there is legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s express or deemed finding that termination is in the best interest of the children.’ This statement of the issue will come as a surprise to the parties and the court of appeals, as no one has raised, briefed, or addressed this issue at any stage of these proceedings. . . . does not even attempt to explain how it can review the parents’ second unpreserved claim of charge error. . . .”

In Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sink, 107 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2003), Republican Judge Phillips (joined by two other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen’s activist opinion favoring insurance companies as follows: “Because the plaintiff in this case is entitled to recovery on the plain terms of the policy, I respectfully dissent. . . . In fact, until today no court has enforced a permission requirement unless the insurance policy explicitly contained such a requirement for temporary substitute automobiles. . . . ‘an attempt to shift the loss to an innocent victim rather than having the insurance company pay for the negligent conduct of its insured.’”

In CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Com'n, 143 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. 2004), Republican Judge Brister (joined by three other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen’s 5-4 activist anti-consumer opinion as follows: “The Legislature said nothing about interest. Nevertheless, holds utilities are potentially entitled to billions of dollars in interest (to be collected from consumers through higher prices) . . . . I do not see how an order refusing to grant interest is inconsistent with a statute that says nothing about interest. . . . There are several reasons the Legislature may have chosen not to make consumers pay interest on the utilities’ stranded costs between 2002 and 2004. . . ; it is hard to see why ratepayers should pay interest as an additional return on an investment option they chose not to make. . . . In a government of separated powers, it is not our role to decide whether paying interest to utilities during 2002 and 2003 would be wise, or fair, or what we would do in similar circumstances. We can decide only whether the Commission violated the deregulation statute . . . ecause the statute is silent on the matter, I would hold it did not.”

In Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004), Republican Judge Schneider (now a federal judge whose appointment was never contested), joined by two other Republican Judges, criticized Judge Owen’s activist opinion as follows: “ today concludes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(1) permits a case to be dismissed for want of prosecution without holding a separate dismissal hearing. Because I conclude that the plain language of the rule requires a separate hearing, I respectfully dissent. . . . I would follow . . . precedent to conclude that the trial courts inherent authority does not permit dismissal when the only evidence of dilatoriness is the failure to appear at a single hearing.”



If this is what her own Republican colleagues say about her judicial philosophy, I shudder to think what use she make of a lifetime judicial appointment.

[DemGirl7]

1. I did a report on her for one of my Poli Sci classes

and she for one thing is not a friend of the little person, in other words she rules in favor of the Big Corporations,who she accepts bribes from and so forth. And if you want to find more about her, google her name, it helped me in my report.

[Toots]

3. "who she accepts bribes from"

Should be whom not who and have you evidence of such. Did you report about this in your report and if so how did your teacher respond?

[sundancekid]

2. thanks for the great research and post ... having been in TX way back then

many of us KNOW her bushevik regime policy bias and "activism" even during the chimp-in-chief stint as gov of TX when she served on the TX supreme court -- she was also WAAAAAAAYYYY too bend-over in favor of Enron

[Czolgosz]

4. She's still on the Texas Supreme Court. I hope her nomination is

rejected so she can run for office with the slogan, "Too Far Right for America -- Just Right for Texas."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Kick for a great thread

[Czolgosz]

6. The original post lost some material that was highlighted in the original

so I am re-posting it:

What do Judge Owen's Republican judicial colleagues say about her opinions since 2001?

In the case of In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001), Republican Judge Abbot (where three other Republican Judges also refused to join Judge Owen's opinion) criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion against open government as follows: "the Legislature enunciated a clear and unambiguous policy statement: ‘it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees.' Tex. Gov't Code § 552.001(a). The Act ‘forcefully articulates a policy of open government.' A & T Consults., Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668, 675 (Tex. 1995). To effectuate this policy, the Legislature mandated that the Act ‘shall be liberally construed in favor of granting a request for information.' Tex. Gov't Code § 552.001(b). But if this Court has the power to broaden by judicial rule the categories of information that are ‘confidential under other law,' then" the open government law "is eviscerated from the statute. . . . This not only contradicts the spirit and language of" the law, "it guts it. . . . It is within the Legislature's province to make that call. We are bound to apply the statute's words as written . . . . Today," Judge Owen "abandons strict construction and rewrites the statute."

In the case of Barnett v. Barnett, 67 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2001), Republican Judge Enoch filed a separate opinion which noted Judge Owen's judicial activism as follows: "I do not join" Judge Owen's "discussion about federal common law. . . because the parties neither brief nor argue the point." Republican Judge Hankinson (joined by three other Republican Judges) was more direct in the criticism of Judge Owen's activist opinion favoring insurance companies: Judge Owen's "broad holding ignores not only the lack of clear and manifest proof that Congress intended ERISA to preempt state marital-property law, but also the United States Supreme Court's repeated admonitions that ERISA will not be lightly interpreted to preempt areas of longstanding, traditional state regulation." Judge Owen "does precisely what Judge Scalia has cautioned against: ‘decreeing a degree of pre-emption that no sensible person could have intended.'"

In the case of In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), Republican Judge Hankinson (where three other Republican Judge also refused to join with Judge Owen) noted the judicial activism in Judge Owen's opinion leaving children in the possession of violent, cocain-using, child-abusive parents as follows: Judge Owen "states the issue in this case as ‘whether there is legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's express or deemed finding that termination is in the best interest of the children.' This statement of the issue will come as a surprise to the parties and the court of appeals, as no one has raised, briefed, or addressed this issue at any stage of these proceedings." Judge Owen "does not even attempt to explain how it can review the parents' second unpreserved claim of charge error. . . ."

In Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sink, 107 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2003), Republican Chief Judge Phillips (joined by two other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion favoring insurance companies as follows: "Because the plaintiff in this case is entitled to recovery on the plain terms of the policy, I respectfully dissent. . . . In fact, until today no court has enforced a permission requirement unless the insurance policy explicitly contained such a requirement for temporary substitute automobiles. . . . " Judge Owen's reading of the insurance contract has been characterized as "an attempt to shift the loss to an innocent victim rather than having the insurance company pay for the negligent conduct of its insured."

In Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004), Republican Judge Schneider (now a federal judge whose appointment was never contested), joined by two other Republican Judges, criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion as follows: Judge Owen "today concludes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(1) permits a case to be dismissed for want of prosecution without holding a separate dismissal hearing. Because I conclude that the plain language of the rule requires a separate hearing, I respectfully dissent. . . . I would follow . . . precedent to conclude that the trial courts inherent authority does not permit dismissal when the only evidence of dilatoriness is the failure to appear at a single hearing."

In CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Com'n, 143 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. 2004), Republican Judge Brister (joined by three other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen's activist anti-consumer opinion as follows: "The Legislature said nothing about interest. Nevertheless," Judge Owen "holds utilities are potentially entitled to billions of dollars in interest (to be collected from consumers through higher prices) . . . . I do not see how an order refusing to grant interest is inconsistent with a statute that says nothing about interest. . . . There are several reasons the Legislature may have chosen not to make consumers pay interest on the utilities' stranded costs between 2002 and 2004. . . ; it is hard to see why ratepayers should pay interest as an additional return on an investment option they chose not to make. . . . In a government of separated powers, it is not our role to decide whether paying interest to utilities during 2002 and 2003 would be wise, or fair, or what we would do in similar circumstances. We can decide only whether the Commission violated the deregulation statute."

[Roland99]

8. Do you have a link to that info?

[Czolgosz]

11. Here's a link to each of Judge Owen's colleagues' dissenting opinions

Go to the website (http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/tx/txca.html), type in the case name in the "Search Title or Docket Number" blank, click on submit query button, and scroll down to the dissenting opinion filed in opposition to Judge Owen's opinion.

[0007]

7. Please send to Senator John Cornyn!

[vman13]

9. Dems are Finally Taking A Stand...

It's baffles me why above all issues Dems are finally taking a stand on this one. I'm glad to see it though. I saw Harry Reid's press conference today and all I can say is them fighten word. Reid essentially claimed that the president had lied to him about his involvement in the nomination process. Bush had told Reid that he felt the nomination process was none of his business. The next thing Reid sees is Chaney and Bush himself proclaiming that they are in support of the "Nuclear Option." Reid looked quite pissed off, though it could have been his Hay Fever.

The Dems have confirmed 208 nominees and it's these radical 7, like Owen, who are creating all the controversy.

[mbali]

10. This issue is probably the most important in generations

it deals with lifetime appointments to the federal courts - unlike other problems which can often be undone in subsequent Administrations or Congresses, judicial nominations are forever (or at least they seem to be . . .)