Wilson off the ballot, Sylvia in big trouble

-- Homophobe Dave Wilson is disallowed from being a Democratic candidate, and we're all appreciative of that.

The 14th Court of Appeals in Houston has denied a request for a place on the March Democratic primary ballot from a would-be challenger to Precinct 4 Commissioner Jerry Eversole.

Sign company owner Dave Wilson sought to run for the Democratic nomination for commissioner. Because no other Republican or Democratic candidates filed to run, Wilson would have faced Eversole in November. ...

Wilson filed a writ of mandamus last week seeking to be placed on the ballot. The appeals panel denied his petition late Wednesday. Wilson said he has not given up and intends to file an appeal with a state district court today.

“I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that the 14th Court of Appeals has made a political ruling rather than one based on the law,” Wilson said, speculating that the court's motive is to protect Republican office seekers.

Allen Blakemore, a political consultant for Eversole, said of the court's decision, “It means that the commissioner is re-elected and excited about that and excited to dispense with politics and get back to the business of roads and bridges and parks and libraries and all of the business of Precinct 4.”

The only larger schmucks in this matter are Eversole and his attorney Blakemore, whom we're still stuck with.

--Meanwhile over in Chambers County, Judge Jimmy Sylvia -- apparently by enjoining his son Jimbo in an employment fraud that is Sopranos-worthy -- is in big trouble for allegedly bilking FEMA out of a boatload of taxpayer money. Wayne Dolcefino (via Bay Area H-Town) did the deed:



Read these two previous entries about my meeting with Sylvia in 2006. It appears there's going to be some music to face for the county judge and his son in this matter. FWIW Sylvia was a Democrat for many years but switched to the GOP in 2007 -- just like some other exurban Texas county officials -- in order to hang onto his job.

-- Update: John links to Dolcefino's second nightly newcast explaining how the scandal is spreading to other Chambers County officials. And here is part three.

SCOTUS removes campaign spending limits on corporations

You know, it's been a really shitty week for justice and democracy.

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie", who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Because, after all, corporations are people too, and they need First Amendment protection like any other living, breathing person.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come. ...

It also undercuts recent congressional legislation mandating tighter controls on political donations that had restricted the flow of corporate dollars into the political system.

Some other opinions of the ruling:

The ruling marks the boldest step yet for Roberts and fellow George W. Bush appointee Alito, who previously had shied away from explicitly reversing precedents. The majority overturned a 1990 Supreme Court decision that said corporations can be barred from using general treasury funds to pay for campaign advertisements.

-- BusinessWeek

Today’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC abolishes the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections and would appear to apply to state and local elections as well as Federal ones given that the Court recognizes such a First Amendment right. This is literally an earth shattering change in the lay of the land in campaign finance, and it will have ramifications in every way imaginable for the foreseeable future.

-- emptywheel at firedoglake

If you like Congressional gridlock and insider politics, then you'll love this decision. If you think the lobbyists for the banks, insurance firms, and oil companies need more power, you'll love this decision. But if you value fairness, democracy and the free speech of ordinary citizens, this is a disaster. It is an immoral decision that puts the Roberts' Court on the side of Wall Street and the big money lobbyists against the interests of Main Street America.

-- Nick Nyhart of Public Citizen

Update: Olbermann spells it out.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Killer Keller skates

Because "public humiliation" is punishment enough for her.

A special master has concluded that Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Sharon Keller doesn't deserve to be removed from office or even given “further reprimand beyond the public humiliation she has surely suffered” for her conduct in a death row inmate's failed effort to file a last-minute appeal before his execution. San Antonio-based District Judge David Berchelmann Jr., serving as special master in the case of alleged judicial misconduct, wrote that the Texas Defender Service in representing Michael Richard “bears the bulk of fault for what occurred on September 25, 2007.”

Unbe-fucking-lievable. Here's her attorney:

"Judge Keller takes to heart the advice that she should strive to be more collegial and that the Court's internal communications should improve," (attorney Chip) Babcock's statement said.

'More collegial'.

Grits:

Interesting to note that "public humiliation" is a substitute for an official reprimand when a judge engages in behavior that's "not exemplary of a public servant" and considered "highly questionable." ... Judge Berchelmann's recommendation will now go to the full Commission on Judicial Conduct who will decide whether to dismiss charges, reprimand Keller, or recommend her removal from office.

And Elise Hu:

The timing of (death row defendant Michael) Richard's last-minute appeal was especially key in this case. He was set to be executed the same day the U.S. Supreme Court stayed all executions in the country after it decided to hear Baze v. Rees, which questioned whether lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The SCJC review says Richard's execution would have likely been stayed too, but his lawyers had to exhaust the lethal injection argument in state courts first. The claim was never presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which Keller leads, after a series of miscommunications between her court and lawyers from the defender service. A key miscommunication had to do with the message about the early closing time.

I gotta say I'm speechless. A compilation from the StandDown Texas Project for the history of this case is here and my previous postings are here.

Updates:  More astounded reactions. Othniel ...

Equality under the Law?
Due Process for all?
Not in Texas. More process than is due to and superior standing under the law is accorded to Chief Judge Keller than to litigants before her.  Apparently those who dare approach her Court seeking Justice enjoy neither equality nor due process.  She cannot be bothered to keep open the Court House door after 5:00 p.m., even though a defendant's life hang in the balance.

WSJ Law Blog (the most conservative source I would ever post):

Well, we weren’t entirely sure that Sharon Keller, the presiding judge the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, was going to get in big trouble over the events of Sept. 25, 2007.

But we hardly expected that the special master presiding over the judicial misconduct charges against Keller would blame another party for the unfortunate series of events. Or that the master, San Antonio-based judge David Berchelmann Jr., would express sympathy for Keller.

Texas Cloverleaf:

Ethics in Texas is never really ethical, and this case is no different. Judge Sharon Keller closed her office promptly at 5pm and allowed a man to be executed, rather than accepting the appeal. ...

Republican judges saving Republican judges. Ahhhh the ethics of Texas. Way to go, impartial judiciary.

Reactions to Massachusetts

Yeah, it sucks that we lost our 60th vote, but really, what did 60 get us last year? It empowered Joe Lieberman, gave cover to Blanche Lincoln, provided excuses to Harry Reid, and gave a free pass to Max Baucus.

Now we don't have 60. And like the Republican Senate of the 2000s, if Democrats want to get anything done, they'll have to do it via reconciliation.

Given last year's track record in the Senate, it certainly can't make the Senate any less effective.

-- Markos

If “Scozzafava’d” (having a candidate endorse the other Party’s candidate) is still a verb in the political lexicon, then I believe “Coakley’d” (taking victory for granted while your opponent campaigns his heart out) should be a verb as well. The conclusion I’m coming to is that Coakley may have been a fine public official, but she was a terrible candidate. Brown’s campaign made all the right moves to take advantage of this special election situation. Meanwhile, Coakley gaffed it up and stayed inside where it was warm (19 events compared to Brown’s 66 events ...)

The lesson for progressives: work hard and don’t take anything for granted. The lesson for elected Democrats: when you have a mandate from the people, use it or lose it.

The silver lining (beyond the fact that Joe Lieberman is joyfully irrelevant once again) is that Texas Democrats don’t take anything for granted.

-- "Coakley'd", from Lubbock Left

The best part of the Democratic loss in Massachusetts is that the pitiful Senate health care bill will now probably die the ugly death it deserves. The only chance it has to survive is for the House progressives to knuckle under and accept the Senate bill as it is, and I don't think they'll do that. At least, I hope they don't.

If they do give up and accept the terribly flawed Senate bill, then the Democrats will suffer in the November elections, and they'll richly deserve it. The American people put the Democrats in power to affect real change in this country, and so far the Democrats have failed to deliver on that promise.

-- Ted McLaughlin at jobsanger

For the sake of our country, I hope this turn of events serves as a wake-up call to President Obama and his advisors. Barack Obama did not win the presidency by calling out for caution and incrementalism. We all know this. He won the presidential election because he inspired a significant winning margin of voters with his bold calls for hope and change. Yet for Obama's first year in office his message to the populist base that gave him a mandate was, "Don't expect too much". The audacious, ringing cry "Yes we can!" turned into the cautious admonition, "No we can't".

-- David Van Os

It’s no secret that the voter unrest is driven by D.C.’s failure to understand the breadth and depth of the nation’s economic anxiety. Some pundits want to say the Massachusetts outcome was anti-health care reform. But that’s not it. The problem is reform hasn’t passed, it doesn’t go far enough. Combined with the perception that bankers and other Wall Street malefactors are getting off easy, the public wants to know why they are left outside on the ledge while the culprits enjoy martinis and big, plump-cushioned, comfortable chairs.

Looking at this from Texas, it’s good news that most Texas Democrats don’t suffer from East Coast smugness. They are, by and large, men and women of the people. Politics is personal, and individual needs and opportunities matter. This is the direction national Democrats should take. Screw the big powerful lobbyists. Get out on Main Street, listen to folk. Lead, but understand who you are leading.

-- Glenn Smith at Dog Canyon

Update: The last word from Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Run-offs in the primaries for Texas governor

Both of them, in my always-humble O. First, about the Pukes:

The appearance in last week's statewide televised debate evidently helped Republican activist Debra Medina the most and won her a spot in the upcoming Jan. 29 debate hosted by Belo.

An new Rasmussen Reports survey shows Medina with 12 percent support among 831 likely GOP primary voters surveyed Sunday. Medina had only 4 percent support in a survey by the company in November.

Perry continues to lead with 43 percent support and Hutchison was at 33 percent, with 11 percent undecided. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. In the November poll, Perry led 46 percent to 35 percent.

Kay Bailey needs to get to 35% and Funky Cold Medina to 16 -- which is the more likely of the two scenarios -- and voila: Rick Perry will have to beat Kay again in a run-off in April.

For the Dems, let's go to Burnt Orange for the opinion of Dr. Richard Murray's take, who's working locally for ABC-13 ...

Bill White starting out with the most name identification is of course an advantage but Farouk Shami has been advertising statewide for the last month to the tune of what I can tell is about $2.5-3.0 million over $3.5 million dollars. White hasn't spent money on TV ads to date and it's unclear when or if that will happen prior to March 2nd's primary. I'm a little curious how effective Shami's ads in December will be for a March primary but considering he's probably going to be on air all the way through the next month and a half, that could solve the problem of people forgetting your name/brand if they aren't reminded about it. Of course, if he got himself listed on the ballot as Farouk "CHI IRON" Shami he'd win the name id game in a pinch. Alas...

Read it all but note this from Dr. Murray at the end:

Taken together, Bill White is almost certain to be the Democratic nominee for governor this year. There is some question as to whether he can get 50% plus against six opponents, thus avoiding an April runoff with Farouk Shami (I think he will get a majority).

Dr. Murray goes on to speculate about the possibility of Shami stalking for Governor MoFo, even quoting John Whitmire in the plot.  I rarely disagree with the good professor and I only occasionally question the Dean of the Texas Senate, but that is complete balderdash.

Anyway, and as I posted on the BOR thread, I'll take Dr. Murray's bet. In 2006, Felix Alvarado's sister -- who had no prior elective experience -- became the Democratic nominee for lt. governor, finishing ahead of an Anglo who had been a state representative and an appeals court judge. She led in the primary election (which included another Hispanic political novice, Adrian DeLeon) and she won the run-off handily.

That's right; four years ago Ben Z. Grant, the only non-Latino in the race for lite gov, got less than 40% of the three-way vote in a race in which more Democrats voted than in the contests higher on the ballot: US Senator (Radnofsky v. Kelly) and governor (Bell v. Gammage).

I think Aguado and Alvarado can draw at least 30% of the primary vote between them, so I'll say the March 2nd numbers look something like this:

White 40%
Shami 20%
Alvarado 18%
Aguado 12%
Dear, Glenn, and Locke together 10%

I believe it's entirely possible that Felix Alvarado and not Farouk Shami makes it into a run-off with White; more likely, in fact than White getting 50%.

*And like Dr. Murray (I'm guessing), I reserve the right to revise this prediction as we draw closer to Election Day, now about six weeks away.