On behalf of Kate Cox, fuck the Texas Supreme Court

Kate Cox appeared to have a "win" with a Travis County district court approving her to have a seemingly medically indicated abortion and cutting through the surely deliberate "fog" at the edge of Texas' anti-abortion laws, only for Kenny Boy Paxton to appeal and the Texas Supremes to temporarily agree, even as the clock ticked for Cox.

On the morning of Monday, Dec. 11, Cox left the state, according to her legal backers at the Center for Reproductive Rights, saying she couldn't wait any longer. As I said in a retweet, Kenny Boy will argue her case is moot, but per the link, her lawyers, rightfully and righteously, want it argued out.

Meanwhile, in a clear conflict of interest? Justice John Devine (NOT "divine"!) brags on camera about his many arrests for harassing women at clinics.

And, was part of the Supreme Court that gave the back of the hand to Cox late Monday, and, as the piece notes, indicated it will take a narrow reading of the state law in the future. 

Meanwhile, I saw Ann Coulter talking about trisomy 18 on Twitter, and a number of #BlueAnon saying, "If you've lost Ann Coulter," while a few persons responded or quote-tweeted with words to the effect of "Ann Coulter knew this could happen; fuck that bitch." And, that's my thought and my sentiment.

Texas GOP voters: You reap what you sow

Texas Supreme Court
Justice Don Willett

For the first time ever, in the two-decade-plus history of multiple school financing lawsuits against the state of Texas, the state won on Friday. The full opinion is here.

And hence, the headline of the post. It's like "What's the Matter with Kansas," only more so.

Yes, the Texas Supreme Court's been all-GOP for some time, but it has shifted steadily further right. And steadily backward.

Sounding like something from the pre-Brown v Board of Education era, straight out of Plessy v Ferguson, Justice Don Willett, who wrote the opinion (there were two concurrences) said that money doesn't equate to educational quality.

Really? Then why do urban parents move to richer suburbs, from either the central city or poorer suburbs? Part of it is racial, but part is financial.

That said, out in small towns and rural areas, there's no rich suburbs where to move. But, people continue to vote against their own self-interest.

I'm in a part of the state where one of the two State Board of Education candidates believes President Obama used to be a gay prostitute, and stuff arguably even weirder. How does electing a candidate like that help rural schools get more money from the state?

It doesn't.

Worse yet, Bruner used to be a kindergarten teacher herself.

And, contra Cherokee County GOP Chairwoman Tammy Blair, Bruner is NOT "a nice older lady." Bigotry normally has hatred behind it. Her comments appear to reflect racism that she's projected back onto Obama (East Texas, especially Deep East Texas, still has plenty of that), gay-bashing, and more. There's nothing nice about that.

And, contra her opponent in the runoff, Keven Ellis, sorry, but for many people, thoughts like hers ARE conservative, and ARE Christian.

That said, there's no guarantee Ellis will be that much more enlightened, should he win the GOP runoff, and presumably, the general election.

And, it's the Texas Lege, not the SBOE, who make the funding decisions. And, so far, my Republican state rep and Republican state senator are both practicing duck and cover politics on this issue. And, that's with my state senator not up for election this cycle and my state rep facing no general election race.

Per the header, I feel sorry for Texas children in central cities, poorer first-ring suburbs, and small towns and the country.

Do I feel sorry for their parents, though?

If they voted Republican, not really.

Their own scriptures tell them that, in the old KJV: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," or in modern English: "As a man sows, so shall he reap."

Yes, the state Supremes, as well as the Texas Lege and the statewide executive offices, have been all-GOP for more than a decade. But, their holders, and their party, have drifted barreled hard farther right in the past half-dozen years or so.

I mean, former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson was a plaintiffs' lawyer! The court rejected a man formerly one of its own, who was part of the 2005 school finance ruling that said, yes, Texas did have a de facto statewide property tax.

UPDATE, May 18: The surest sign yet this ruling was fucked up is that Justice Willett is on Trump's SCOTUS short list.

Will Texas CPS learn from Supreme Court FLDS ruling as Act I ends?

The Texas Supreme Court today upheld the Texas Court of Appeals and said that Child Protective Services had no legal grounds to separate Fundamentalist Mormon children from their mothers, as the Yearning for Zion ranch case now officially ends Act I.

The opinion was unsigned, meaning the high court saw this as a no-brainer decision.

That said, three justices had a concurring opinion, in which they said CPS did have some evidence of the possibility of prepubescent sexual abuse, but failed to consider less-obtrusive options than mass removal. For example, CPS could have taken DNA samples of all men, all women believed to be under a certain age and all children those women birthed.

Now, as the story notes, CPS has options. It can restrict the movement of children reunited with their parents.

But, with $4/gallon gas and CPS workers already weeks behind in state travel voucher reimbursements, can CPS even afford to monitor something like that?

As for CPS’ fear the group would flee the state – to where? They’d have to fly WAYYY under the radar screen to hide themselves, and would soon be rediscovered again. Their Mexican counterparts don’t want them south of the border, either.

But, right now, all CPS will say is that it is “reviewing its options.”

We can only hope it does more than that. Unfortunately, the curtain will likely raise on a discombobulated Act II.