Texas Watch, the “non-partisan, advocacy organization working to improve consumer and insurance protections for Texas families,” filed another complaint today against Justice Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court , alleging that a Texas Secretary of State election law opinion issued in 1985 and a State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) admonishment of former Justice Kilgarlin (the “Kilgarlin Admonishment”) (Justice Hecht’s predecessor in Place 6 on the Bench) somehow serves as “stirkingly similar” precedent underlying Texas Watch’s latest jeremiad against Justice Hecht.

Non-lawyer expert on precedent

About the only thing “strikingly similar” between the admonishment of Justice Kilgarlin and Texas Watch’s most recent complaint against Justice Hecht is that they both involve SCOTX Justices and the SCJC. Alex Winslow–Executive Director of Texas Watch, signatory to all the complaints filed against Justice Hecht, and non-attorney–thinks so much of a supposed distinction in the Kilgarlin Admonishment that he italicizes his strained attempt at a point regarding the “difference between using and soliciting funds for such a matter.”

Well, if you peruse page six of the Kilgarlin Admonishment where the SCJC explains its conclusion regarding the solicitation and use of campaign funds, it is plain the distinction the SCJC draws regards the type of action for which the funds were solicited. The SCJC itself said it best when it clarified that:

[W]hile it may be permissible to solicit and use such funds for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of the issuance of the legislative subpoena, the [SCJC] is of the opinion that the solicitation of funds by the judge to prosecute the lawsuit against a former briefing attorney who had testified before the House Committee is an entirely different matter.

The SCJC defended the right of a judge to challenge the constitutionality of a sanction, but thought it a bridge too far to use those funds to finance the filing of a separate suit against persons tangentially-related to the sanction.

Here, Justice Hecht never filed a suit against anyone, he merely appealed the constitionality of the sanction levied against him by the SCJC. Hyper-ironically, the very wording of the Kilgarlin Admonition–upon which Texas Watch entirely relies–permits the very type of expenditure and solicitation of campaign funds that Texas Watch hollowly bemoans.

Bottom line is that this latest complaint has absolutely no merit, and further reveals Texas Watch’s utter buffoonery. However, as predicted earlier, Justice Hecht has already been forced to expend more funds in order to retain counsel to defend him in this latest round of partisan witch-huntery.

Thx to the Texas Lawyer

Advertisements