3/5s of Texas Senate unlikely to approve of this blog post

-- Chris Hooks, Texas Observer, on the demise of the two-thirds rule in the state's upper chamber yesterday.  Just go read the whole thing.  The Chron has the fallout.

Democrats strongly opposed the change, arguing it will bring unintended consequences: Instead of 21 votes, just 19 will be required to cancel public hearings on bills, to waive public notice of committee meetings, to waive cost estimates known as "fiscal notes" that are required on bills, even to waive a rule that now requires bills to be held for 24 hours before they come to a vote of the full Senate.

"It will also be easier to waive a rule that bars lobbyists from the (Senate) floor, that allows us to take action against a senator who accepts bribes," said state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin. 

Yep, elections have consequences, and those who sat the last one out are in the canoe going over the falls along with everybody else.  Things will just have to get a whole lot worse before they get better.  If po' folks and women and minorities are willing to let old, white, property-owning slaveholders conservatives do all the voting for everybody, then they get what they deserve.  On some level the whining about "my vote doesn't matter" is just a poor excuse for being too stupid/lazy to pay attention to what's important.

We're waiting for 71% of Texans to figure out they're getting fucked over, and I'm afraid they may not ever do so, no matter how much they get pestered with proof.  Idiocracy is turning into a documentary, and not five centuries in the future but right before our eyes.

If someone who doesn't vote finds themselves in jail because they took out a payday loan they couldn't afford, or finds herself pregnant with no option other than giving birth, or slowly realizes that the school his kids go to is shit, or suddenly notices that everybody at the mall is walking around strapped with a gun, then why should I care about those concerns?  Why should I spend my spare time in the spring and summer and fall calling them and visiting their house, begging them to vote?  Why should I care more about them than they do for themselves, their families, their children?

Let them go play games on their phones or work three jobs at $7 dollars and change an hour or wear a $200 jersey to a $150 football game (that's on the low end, mind you).  They want to take a stand about deflated footballs as if that's the most pressing national issue today?  Go ahead on.  The worm has turned for everybody now.  Who am I to object if they want to dress up in a different costume every weekend and play pretend?  Maybe that is better than focusing on what's going on in the real world, after all.  

It's okay by me if they think they need both a Redbox and a Netflix subscription AND went to see American Sniper last weekend (to cheer).  Come the next war, it won't be any of my kids having to fight it because they have no other career options.  It's a free country, somebody said.  PT Barnum was right about the birth rates of suckers.  It's on them to figure out who's the screwer and the screwee, and which one they are.

On a more humorous note...

--Alan Grayson and his ex are, ah, in the news for all the wrong reasons.

A trial to determine whether U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's wife committed bigamy when she wed the congressman has been delayed because she required emergency surgery to remove breast implants.

I would have thought that Grayson was more intelligent than to have married someone like that.

-- A bill to ban abortion after twenty weeks in the United States (you know, same as it is now in Texas) failed in Congress last night because some Republicans objected to the rape clause it contained.

But they ran into objections from women and other Republican lawmakers unhappy that the measure limited exemptions for victims of rape or incest to only those who had previously reported those incidents to authorities.

The rebellious lawmakers argued that that would put unfair pressure on women who often feel shame or fear retaliation if they report those assaults.

In a complication GOP leaders were not able to resolve, they then ran into objections from anti-abortion groups and lawmakers when they discussed eliminating the reporting requirements.

See, it's the old "honest rape", "legitimate rape", forcible rape definitions bunching them up.  If a 12-year-old gets pregnant from being raped by her uncle but doesn't tell the police about it, then she cannot get an abortion after 20 weeks.  That's what they got stuck on.  Really.  Some GOPers actually think that's wrong.

It turns on a very simple premise for conservatives: it is God's will that she conceived after being raped, and defiance of God's will not to give birth to that child.  Strangely enough, there seem to be some Republicans elected to Congress in 2014 who disagree.

Elections. Have. Consequences.  I think I can get a supermajority to support that.

The fifth anniversary of Citizens United

Is our democratic republic better off now than it was five years ago?  Most Americans don't think so.

Specifically regarding the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision from 2010, respondents were told:

In response, 80% of Americans opposed the decision and 18% supported it. Although Republicans (72%) were less opposed to the decision than Democrats (82%), it was Independents (84%) most opposed to the decision.

Neither do most of the so-called experts.  In the face of unrelenting negativity about our political system, I usually need a laugh, so let's check in with Al Franken.

I love anniversaries of many occasions. I love birthdays, which are perhaps the most fun kind of anniversary. And every year Franni and my wedding Anniversary is a really, really big deal. When you’ve been married for 39 years, it certainly oughta be.

But the 5th Anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United is coming up later this month. Corporations, special interest groups, and people like the Koch brothers are probably beside themselves with happiness and preparing their 5 year (wooden?) anniversary gifts (I believe silverware is the modern gift).

But let me tell you — that’s one anniversary I will never, ever celebrate.

Citizens United has taken a place among the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. It created just the kind of opportunity special interest groups and shadowy billionaires had been hoping for – a legal way to funnel tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars into American elections. And in many cases, the actors are completely anonymous.

Consider the numbers. 2008 was the last presidential election year before Citizens United, and outside groups spent about $338 million. In 2012 — the first presidential election of the Citizens United era — outside groups spent a staggering $1.03 billion on elections, and nearly all of that increase came from so-called “independent expenditures.”

The Supreme Court based its decision on the idea that spending by outside groups, including corporations, will not and cannot give rise to corruption — or even to the appearance of corruption. The Court shred decades of established law with that conclusion. And follow-up cases like SpeechNow.org v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC have led us even further down the unlimited-corporate-spending rabbit hole.

It’s been five years. In those five years, we’ve seen our elections get nastier, and we’ve watched the American people slide from skepticism of Washington to outright contempt. And I think they have every right to be upset — corporations pour money into politics, and the policy discussion takes a decidedly pro-corporate tilt, while the voices of middle class families are drowned out. If that’s not corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption, then I don’t know what is.

As long as Citizens United remains on the books, any campaign finance reforms will be half-measures. We will be lopping off the leaves of the weed, while its roots sink deeper and deeper.

So how do we get rid of Citizens United? Glad you asked.

1. We can wait until the Supreme Court overturns the case themselves. Which isn’t likely to happen. So let’s forget that.
2. Congress can pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to overturn the effects of Citizens United. This is probably the best option, but it’s also going to take a long time to get through. We’re still working on it. But in the meantime –
3. YOU could remind Congress how hard we’re willing to work to overturn Citizens United. We’ve already got more than 631,600 signatures on our petition. If your name isn’t on there, here’s where you go to add it.

Citizens United has got to go, and we can’t rest until the job’s done. Until then, here’s to hoping that Citizens United doesn’t make it to its candy/iron anniversary.

I like to call the constitutional amendment that would overturn CU the "Political Consultants Retirement Act".  Just think: no more Karl Roves, or Dave Carneys, or Allen Blakemores.  Campos -- and all the rest of these, from Houston to Austin to Washington -- would have to find a real job.

That's what they call a win-win, people.

Of course our broadcast media corporations, without this steady flow of advertising revenue, would be in an even bigger world of hurt than the professional political prostitutes.  Would it be a bad thing, however, if they had to reinvent themselves without breast-augmented, too-tight-top wearing weather forecasters or male model news readers (from six years ago, predating CU and intentional snark aside).  The beefcake and cheesecake and the reporting of it is almost out of control.  If you want higher ratings, station managers, just go ahead and have them read the news in the buff (NSFW, duh).  Dispense with the titillation and slide one seat over to soft porn, for crying out loud.

We'll get better mainstream media if we get the political money out of it as well.  We're now up to win-win-win.  Do you need any more reasons?  How about this news, via Crooks and Liars, about Charles and David Koch and the way they're celebrating the anniversary this weekend.

Four leading Republican presidential prospects are expected to appear this weekend in the California desert before an exclusive gathering of rich conservatives convened by the Koch brothers’ political operation, several sources tell POLITICO.

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin received coveted invitations to speak to the vaunted network assembled by the billionaire industrialist megadonors Charles and David Koch, the sources said.

The meeting, set to be held at a Palm Springs hotel, is the annual winter gathering of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the nonprofit group that oversees the network of fiscally conservative groups formed with help from the Kochs and their operatives.

None of the White House prospects invited to the meeting this weekend responded to questions about whether they planned to attend and, if so, what they planned to discuss. A spokesman for Freedom Partners declined to comment on the function, which is closed to the press.

No surprise that in addition to the Sheldon primary, there's now a Koch party that every Republican who's anybody wants to attend.  Or that the biggest beneficiary of CU on the left -- just barely left, for certain -- is Hillary Clinton.

All that free speech is bound to be just peachy for democracy.  You ready now?

Scattershooting while waiting for something to come on teevee

-- Will you be watching the coronation of Coathanger Ken this morning or the State of the Union this evening?  Or both?

With more angry conservative Congressional representatives in the House (and Senate) than ever, try to imagine how Obama's tax cut proposal is going to be received.  "You lie" is likely to be remembered as a peck on the cheek after tonight.

And don't miss Joni "Make 'em Squeal" Ernst's response, either.  The other Republican responses might be fun, but I'll read about them tomorrow rather than watch them tonight.  Between Greg Abbott and Rep. Curt Clawson, my toxicity detector can only red-line so many times in one twelve-hour period.

Update: Here's the speech Obama would be giving tonight if he were brutally honest.  Everybody (Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, independent) should read it.

--The Wilmore Report The Nightly Show debuted last night to decent reviews.

“The Oscar nominations are out, and they’re so white, a grand jury decided not to indict them!”

Conservative viewers will appreciate that he got in a dig at Al Sharpton.

-- The inevitable backlash against the conservative slobbering over American Sniper is on.  It's already one of the highest-grossing films of the year -- in both red and blue states -- after its first weekend at the box office.  I haven't seen it yet, but I am pretty sure that I won't be able to ascribe either hero or coward status to Chris Kyle.  He suffered a lot of PTSD himself, particularly public delusions of grandeur away from the battlefield that have been debunked.  I think his is the premier cautionary tale of the dangers associated with sending young men and women to war even once, but certainly repeatedly.

We shouldn't do that again, but we especially should not do so if we cannot take care of our injured veterans after they return home.  And that includes their psychological wounds.

-- Selma is the movie I'm going to see first, however.  It has had its own controversies, truth-telling versus artistic license being the main one.  Having read enough about the interpretive disagreements involved, I'm also going to watch it without judgment.  Let's just keep in mind that this sort of thing isn't quite over yet in America.

(Update: Some people are still living with the damage they endured.)

-- Several US law enforcement agencies are now equipped with radar that can see what's going on inside your home.  Do you feel safe yet?

At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.

With each passing day, I feel less concerned about my megadata being surreptitiously collected, my e-mail and text and calls being monitored, and my cell phone being tricked by the cops while participating in a peaceful protest.

--  Yeah, we're all spending less at the pump but we're paying more at the grocery store.  Even giving the chickens more room to stretch their wings is pushing the price of eggs north.  As a conflicted carnivore, I will gladly pay that.

The MLK Day Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance commemorates the life of Martin Luther King Jr. today and welcomes any progress on moving his Dream closer to reality.

Off the Kuff offers some thoughts on emphasizing local elections for the next cycle or two.

lightseeker, back from his sabbatical at Texas Kaos, re-examines the state of the Democratic Party and the need for and challenges to grow its voter base, in The Great Progressivism Debate, Part I.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson grimaces at the taste of the rotten fruit of one party rule in Texas. See the corruption inherent in the system?

Texas Leftist kicked off his coverage of the 84th Legislative Session with a new blog series. Big Government Texas is a catalogue of the endless hypocrisy demonstrated by Texas' TEApublican CONservative leaders. Check out Part 1 and Part 2 of the series.

Texas Republicans clearly love their cronies' profits more than they care about the safety of our workers. CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme mourns along with those missing an actual fighter for workers and Texas children.

Handicapping the race for Houston mayor this early in the cycle is a dirty job, but PDiddie at Brains and Eggs did it anyway.

Bluedaze asks North Texans to make their voices heard at the EPA public hearing in Arlington on the proposed guidelines for controlling ozone.

Neil at All People Have Value -- perhaps suffering a bit of Seasonal Affective Disorder -- ruefully observes that since nobody voted in 2014, nobody really cares about what happens in Austin in 2015.

Texpate made a prediction about this summer's Supreme Court decision on marriage equality.

Dos Centavos wants to remind everyone that there is, again, no Tejano band playing on Go Tejano Day at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo.

=====================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs:

TFN Insider and Texas Watch join in bidding Rick Perry a very fond "Adios, mofo".

Christopher Hooks at the Texas Observer details the unannounced reasons why Leticia Van de Putte is running for mayor of San Antonio.

Juanita Jean explains what "local control" really means.

The Lunch Tray highlights Ag Commissioner Sid Miller's grandstanding on "cupcake amnesty".

Better Texas Blog lays out its legislative priorities.

CeCe Cox wants rationality to win out over fear-mongering in Plano.

Bill Kelly of Mental Health America of Greater Houston has his maiden blog post up, welcoming the Texas Lege back into session.  Minding Houston will be an advocate for policy supporting the mental health care system in Texas.

Grits for Breakfast shares a SAEN op-ed that implores the Lege to comply with the Prison Rape Elimination Act by raising the age of criminal culpability.

Lone Star Ma bemoans the STAAR requirements.

Newsdesk eulogizes Linda Bridges, president of the American Federation of Teachers chapter in Texas, who died unexpectedly last week.

Socratic Gadfly shares his best blog posts of 2014.

Fascist Dyke Motors has the second part of what's inside your head.

Trail Blazers takes note of the Dallas DREAMer invited to sit in the First Lady's box at the State of the Union address tomorrow night.

Finally, the TPA wishes Paul Burka all the best as he begins the next chapter of his life.

Handicapping the race for mayor of Houston

If you want to read about the money involved, this won't be the post or the place.  I'm going to leave that to those who want continuing access to the consultantocracy, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum from where I am.  I want the money OUT of ALL of our politics, and that goal is not served by constantly speculating about or documenting the details and building up the importance of fundraising.

Money is the reason we can't have a nice democracy in this country, in this state, and in this city.  Too much money is why we don't have enough progressive, populist Democrats as it is.  Money -- specifically Super PAC money and shadowy corporate money -- is in fact one of the main reasons why Democrats are conflated with Republicans, and by extension one of the many reasons why they cannot get the people who used to vote for them to the polls any longer.  I hope Democrats wise up and figure this out sooner than later, but if they don't, there's always the political party that has, and they will be fielding candidates for city elections in 2015.  Competition on the basis of beliefs and not bucks simply produces better politicians.

Update: As the Notorious RBG has so clearly stated: "Why should elections be determined by how much a candidate can spend and why should candidates spend most of their time these days raising the funds so that they will prevail in the next election?"

Having said that...

1. In the pole position is Rep. Sylvester Turner.  It's been twelve years, so it's time for his third bid for the center seat in the horseshoe (he ran in 1991, losing in a close runoff to the late Bob Lanier, and finished third in 2003, to eventual mayor Bill White and Orlando Sanchez).  He's already been in the race for nearly a year.

Turner's legislative, parliamentarian, and legal prowess is unmatched.  It's his well-hidden agenda that's always a little suspect.  In 1999, when the Democrats still held the Texas House, he was just as hard to read for his motivations as he was in 2013.  Turner's populist bonafides are similarly unquestioned, but his skills at compromise have clouded any reputation as a progressive.  As of today, he's the prohibitive favorite.

2-3. It's difficult to pick who among the declareds might be running second, so let's call the co-leaders Stephen Costello and Chris Bell.  Costello is a term-limited at-large council member best described as the most moderate a Republican can be while still being in the GOP.  This is completely unsatisfactory to the vast majority of conservative voters, however, which may actually be helpful in the mayor's tilt.  Costello is a River Oaks Republican; that's valuable in this race despite what the freakiest-of-freak-right think.  (He would have trouble mollifying the HERO-phobes anyway.)

I posted about Costello's various and extremely lucrative city contracts when he first ran for council in 2009 here and in 2011 here, and Open Source Dem posted about Renew Houston, the initiative Costello headed to have dedicated municipal funds to flood control.  He'll have all the cash he needs to run big, his own and other people's.  If Republicans vote for someone besides Costello, it won't be because of what they sneeringly refer to as the "rain tax".

Bell's Democratic credentials are without question.  He also ran for mayor previously in 2001, an ill-fated bid against Lee Brown.  Since leaving City Hall in 2002, he has served in Congress and been tubed by Tom DeLay, then ran for governor in 2006, pounding the hapless incumbent in the last gubernatorial debate held in Texas until 2014 -- but coming in second, 39-30%.  He also lost a bid for state Senate in 2008 after a Republican-backed stalking horse named Stephanie Simmons forced him into a runoff with now-Sen. Joan Huffman, exposing some of the more unpleasant racial tensions that have dogged his public service.  Bell will have plenty of support among Houston Anglo Democrats; they're the largest voting bloc in the city.  He just needs to find a way to get more black and brown votes.  Bell's Wiki says he is a border surge proponent, which would limit support from Latinos, but in a recent conversation since last summer's child crisis, he's recognized that a greater degree of compassion is needed to solve the state's immigrant concerns.

(There is a tremendous opportunity for someone to speak up about issues of social justice such as the criminalizing of food-sharing -- if Kubosh can do it, surely some liberal can -- human trafficking, police abuse, and the plight of neighborhoods like Manchester that find themselves at the sharp end of the environmental spear while Valero gets yet another tax break.  I'll watch and see who might emerge in that regard.  It will certainly beat having to listen to the incessant caterwauling of the gay-haters.)

Bell's signature issue throughout his political career has been ethics reform, and specifically the regulation of what we used to quaintly call soft donor money.  This legacy is part of why he's suing Turner over how the contributions to the Representative's legislative coffers might be transferred to a mayoral run.

Considering the various constituencies who won't support him in any circumstance, Bell has a high bar to clear to make the runoff.  That could change if...

4-7. ... some of these conservatives can find traction and split the R vote: Ben Hall (of course he's a Republican, silly rabbit), Bill King, Oliver Pennington, and Orlando Sanchez.  Hall is raring to go again with his peculiar coalition of holy warriors aligned against the city's non-discrimination ordinance (black pastors, their flocks, and TeaBaggers).  People who look at early polling of the mayor's race see some strength for Hall.  I'm not party to those polls and wouldn't place much stock in them if I were.  He's just got too much baggage to carry from two years ago.  But it's fair to say that Hall's early support is not nothing, and he's still got the wallet to make it work.  My perception is that the Af-Am vote is already committed to Turner and that the far right can find a more palatable candidate in Pennington.  He's going to try to be the most conservative guy in the race, and that unfortunately might count for something.  King's just too much like Costello without the Houston ballot name recognition.  Sanchez, as with another Latino mulling the race, needs to commit before I can factor him into the exotic parlays.

8-12.  The already-also-rans, including some who are still 'maybes', include Metro board chairman Gilbert Garcia, former United Airlines executive Joe Ferreira, businessman Marty McVey, attorney Sean Roberts, and most doubtful of all, Council Member Jack Christie, who's lately saying more about not running.  Garcia's brother, Roland, is a high-powered attorney and an important behind-the-scenes player in the Parker administration.  Gilbert has started and managed a variety of high-profile financial firms and and hosted bloggers as part of Metro's PR push.  He was also active in Sylvia Garcia (no relation)'s campaign for state senator in 2012.  Garcia would make a fascinating entrant, but he's tipping that he's not running.  Roberts is a black Dem and known to me well as a decent fellow.  McVey was recently interviewed on urban radio about the events of Ferguson and Staten Island.  Ferreira is a political novice and somewhat of a cipher.  Only conservative Christie has held elected office, and he defeated  progressive darling Jolanda Jones just four years ago.  There's no reason to think any of these folks stand much of a chance, and that's irrespective of name recognition or funds or stances on issues.

The wildest of cards is, of course, Adrian Garcia.  He moves to the head of the class if he stops playing coy.  He's not talking about quitting the sheriff's department and jumping in because he can't, and this piece says he's not raising much money, but then there's this (from just before last Election Day).

Some donors and political allies say Garcia has sent every signal he will run for mayor. Others consider him genuinely undecided.

Nothing has prevented Garcia from raising big dollars. A fundraiser hosted by prominent trial attorney Tony Buzbee at his River Oaks home raked in more than $100,000 for him last month, and the popular politician raised $217,000 in the first half of 2014.

When introducing Garcia, Buzbee made it clear to the crowd that they stood in his home not to just bolster the coffers of the sheriff, but to build the fundraising base of the next mayor.

"I know you can't declare for mayor, and you can't declare you want to run for mayor, but, by golly, I wish you would look around this room and see who wants you to do so," Buzbee told Garcia.

Garcia told the 120 donors that he was focused solely on his current job.

Yeah.  And I promised I wouldn't blog about fundraising.

Everybody remembers why Buzbee has been in the news, right?  A Democrat once mentioned as a candidate for statewide office who is now quite solidly a Republican?  That almost precisely describes Adrian Garcia.

As previously mentioned, I wouldn't support him if he ran for dogcatcher, but my speaking against him won't keep him from making the runoff if he gets in.  He's the ultimate pandering, middle-of-the-road Blue Dog on his best day, and now I'm convinced he has had conversations with Buzbee about switching parties.  Forget his handing the position of Harris County Sheriff back to the GOP; he's a DINO long established.  If Adrian Garcia's ultimate ambition is to get elected to statewide office, then he will have to declare himself a Republican.  Should be just a matter of playing the card, as he's already there philosophically.

He's out until he's in, though, so rank it Turner, Costello, Bell, and some other conservative -- one of Hall or Pennington -- as of today.  If/when Sheriff AG pulls the trigger, it turns into a real scramble, with he and Turner and some Republican (I'd say probably a Caucasian one) as best bets to make the top two.  O Sanchez would be the biggest loser in this development.

What's your take?

Sunday Funnies

SCOTUS will rule on marriage equality this year

But as Hair Balls points out: will Texans just have to cool their jets until then?

Last week, when the federal Fifth Circuit appeals court heard oral arguments regarding gay marriage bans in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, things looked promising for advocates of marriage equality.  [...]

Both (plaintiffs' attorney Neel) Lane and the State of Texas had already asked the Fifth Circuit to rule, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court decided to hear a gay-marriage case - "It is the only thing we agree with the state on," Lane says. If the Fifth Circuit does come down with a ruling in favor of gay marriage, it's unclear whether Texas' new attorney general, Ken Paxton, would try to further delay things by appealing the case to the Fifth Circuit's full 15-judge panel.

Nevertheless, Lane believes that the Fifth Circuit judges' questions last Friday indicate their willingness to lift the current stay that's kept Texas' gay-marriage ban in place. If the Fifth decides not to punt, there's the very real possibility that Texas could see gay marriages before the Supreme Court takes up the issue.

"The question is whether the Fifth Circuit will rule on the three cases before it, knowing that the Supreme Court is likely to give a definitive answer by June," Lane told us. "I hope the Fifth Circuit will rule rather than wait, because my clients have waited long enough for their rights to be recognized."

I'm skeptimistic.  I think much of that is a pile of BS waiting for Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton, Dan Patrick and the worst conservatives in the state legislature to roll around in, smear on their faces and all over each other, and generally continue to further embarrass the state of Texas in the eyes of the nation.

So I'll prognosticate a worst-case scenario and hope that any better outcome will happen.

To begin, my anonymous legal eagle has (fairly safely) predicted a 2-1 Fifth Circuit decision, with Higginbotham and Graves in the majority and Jerry Smith writing some harshly-worded minority rebuke.  My source similarly thought that ruling wouldn't come down for several months.  With this Supreme Court development, I would be surprised if the appeals panel waited until the summer; I'll fashion that they now move up their deadline.  As Michael Barajas of Hair Balls intimates, this opens the door to AG Paxton busting his move, which the full Fifth takes and then rushes to some conclusion ahead of the Supremes, probably an unfavorable one for marriage equality.  If the Supreme Court favors the plaintiffs and legalizes gay marriage -- not a silly guess at all -- then you've got an opening for Abbott to call the Lege into special session, with a charge to outlaw it in Texas on some convoluted application of the theory of nullification.

And yet another years-long court battle.

Update: More than a couple of lawyer-types have indicated that the Fifth Circuit is is likely not to issue a decision en banc before the SCOTUS rules (if that happens in June) due to the historical snail's pace at which these things move through the courts.  I welcome additional input that improves the nightmare described above.

If you really want to be disheartened, then read this speculative legal analysis behind why the Supremes took on these cases: because the reworked questions and their narrow framing might enable them -- most specifically, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy-- to vote to criminalize gay marriage.  Update: And take this as encouragement that Kennedy is the fifth vote to legalize.  And yes, this as well.

The past 15 weeks have shown, time and time again, that a majority of the Supreme Court is not only ready for, but has been preparing the country for, a decision enforcing nationwide protection of same-sex couples’ right to marry.

Paranoia aside and if the high court rules in favor of marriage equality, I cannot see the governor, the attorney general, Dan Patrick and the Lege just lying down and 'getting it crammed down their throats'... as conservatives enjoy saying so much.

All this while HERO's jury trial comes to a head.  It's going to a tempestuous year for the 'mophobes.  That much is the only certainty.  Via Charles, this Buzzfeed post is best for all of the SCOTUS details.

Just vote progressive in 2016 (and 2015)

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, blahblahblah.

Will she or won't she?  Only her hairdresser knows for sure, I suppose.  I remain of the opinion that these relentless entreaties to get her to jump in, mostly being made by MoveOn.org but also others, are just sad to watch.

As for Bernie, he's narrowed his own options down to 'not running'.  And don't worry, Democrats; the Greens still have essentially nobody.  The Libertarians might be set for some fun, though.

But it's really up to the Republicans to provide the next two years of entertainment, and thankfully they aren't disappointing us.  That will continue to be a target-rich environment for a snarky blogger, but I'll keep efforting to limit my contributions to the 140-characters-or less-variety, occasionally seen in the column to your right.

I'm going to try to keep the focus on H-Town politics for the year, as there is so much news breaking that some of it will go national.  The only thing you need to remember to do -- besides vote, that is -- is to vote for the most liberal candidates and issues on your ballot this year (and next, please).  Toss out the labels.  Which is what they want you to do anyway, seeing as how it's supposed to be non-partisan and all.

We don''t need annnny more conservatives down at City Hall.  That goes for conservative, pro-business, mushy-middle moderate Democrats as well.  With the tiny number of Houstonians historically participating in city elections, with the well-motivated right-wing freaks in the 'burbs excluded by geography but not by activism, we need all progressives on deck.  Houston cannot be allowed to devolve by apathy into Lubbock.

Gun goons invade Capitol, threaten state rep in his office

An already-well-documented atrocity by many others, here's the video and the Houston Press account.

A video posted by Kory Watkins, a member of Open Carry Tarrant County, shows gun activists confronting State Rep. Poncho Nevarez, a Democrat from Eagle Pass, in his capitol office Tuesday. The crew of gun-rights supporters was apparently shopping a bill filed by GOP Rep. Jonathan Stickland, which, if passed, would allow Texans to openly carry handguns without even obtaining a license.

This type of deliberately confrontational behavior -- over guns, on the first day of the legislative session -- is even more sobering when you consider it's actually easier to get into the State Capitol with a concealed carry license than without one (no line, no metal detector, no routine security check for concealed carriers).

Just imagine the scene if some black or brown people had done something like this.  The Lege has responded, moving quickly toward some safe-guarding of their members, which will hopefully be in place before the next brazen stunt that threatens to spin out of control into violence.

These Open Carry Tarrant County thugs (mugshots of two of the perps at this link) are at odds with the Open Carry Texas contingent in tactics but not in goal.

According to the Dallas Morning News, Open Carry Texas leader CJ Grisham condemned Open Carry Tarrant County on Facebook and Twitter. “I am so pissed at the actions of people today inside the Capitol. Totally counterproductive and unprofessional."

“I mean, it’s the first day of the Legislature, we are this close to getting open carry passed, and now these guys want to come and manufacture a firearm on the steps of the Capitol? I just don’t get it.”

That helps, but not if Rep. Stickland keeps throwing gas on the fire, as he did right before this standoff occurred.

"With your help, we are going to storm this Capitol and quit getting on our knees and asking for the Second Amendment back," Stickland told the armed crowd gathered Tuesday. "We are going to take it back."

Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America had the best analysis.

“This divide within the open carry groups right now in Texas seems like an easy way for some of these bills to seem more ‘reasonable’, said Watts. “Moms are here to make sure these attempts do not go unchecked, we remember the threats and intimidation, and we will not sit idle and let this sort of behavior become acceptable.”

Earlier this week members of the Texas chapter of (MDAfGSiA) visited 175 offices in the state legislature with cookies and strollers in tow to introduce themselves and discuss common-sense gun legislation and the chapter’s opposition to expanding open carry in Texas.

The bill is going to pass, gun nuts.  Take your toys -- the ones that compensate for your shortcomings, inadequacy, and self-confidence -- and go home so that cooler (big) heads can calm this situation down enough for you to get what you want.  Threats and intimidation simply aren't good PR moves for an inexorable gun activist movement.

We'd like to avoid any Newtowns, Auroras, and/or Charlie Hebdos from you.  Thanks in advance.

Update: Texas Leftist has this.

As this legislature gets rolling, let’s hope that they remember one thing about guns.  If you pass an Open Carry law for Texas, you pass it for everyone.  All the panic buttons in the world won’t change that.  It’s time for Texans to unite for common-sense policies, and say no to a Big Government legislature that would force all of us to be less safe.

Rick Perry's Texas Miracle is leaving with him

You can't really blame the guy for being stupid enough to run for president again after his 2012 debacle.  That was just a one-off; he's been crazy lucky all his life, after all.  But the circumstances surrounding the state's economic winning streak are not being extended to his successor.

“This is going to be a painful period of time,” explained Texas Governor Rick Perry. The oil price plunge is going to make things “very uncomfortable” in the oil patch of Texas. There would be “a bit of belt-tightening in places,” and some areas would “have to make some changes,” he said.

His speech to a conservative forum on Friday in Austin made one thing clear: for Texas, the largest oil-producing state in the nation, the oil bust won’t be easy, even if seen from the perennially optimistic point of view of a politician.

Some oil companies are starting to lay people off, some are are already going bankrupt.

Yet, even as capital expenditures are getting slashed brutally, companies have not lowered their production forecasts.

And they won’t, at least not for a while; they’ll keep pumping at the maximum rate possible, especially now that revenues from unhedged production have been plunging – while the costs of servicing their mountains of debt have remained the same, and rolling over that debt has become a lot more expensive. Cutting back on exploration, drilling, and completion stems the cash outflow, but it doesn’t cut production, not until the decline rates of existing shale wells start making a visible dent into it.

The market price of oil hasn't touched bottom yet.

Analysts say that richer (OPEC) cartel members like the United Arab Emirates have been ready to accept the price fall in the hope that it will force higher-cost shale producers out of the market.

"We cannot continue to be protecting a certain price," UAE Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei said. "We have seen the oversupply, coming primarily from shale oil, and that needed to be corrected," he told participants in the Gulf Intelligence UAE Energy Forum in Abu Dhabi.

Oil prices continued their slide towards six-year lows in Asian trade on Tuesday after Brent crude closed below $50 a barrel the previous day for the first time since April 2009. 

The fall came after Wall Street investment titan Goldman Sachs slashed its price outlook, adding to anxiety about global oversupply, weak demand and soft growth in the key Chinese and European markets.

One more from that Goldman report.

One such estimate for future crude oil prices became available Monday, predicting West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices of $39 and $65 a barrel in the next six and 12 months, respectively. Brent crude prices will fall to $43 in the next six months and rise to $70 by the end of the next 12 months.

So the reason this is important to Texas is because Jethro Bodine, Counter of Beans, is predicting something similar in his biennial state revenue forecast, upon which all spending decisions by the incoming legislature will be made.

Comptroller Glenn Hegar is forecasting that Texas lawmakers will have about $18 billion in new or carried over state revenue to spend in the next two-year budget...

A big part of Hegar’s comparatively optimistic forecast: He estimates the price of West Texas intermediate, the benchmark for oil in commodity markets, will be $64.50 in fiscal 2015 and $69.25 the following year. That’s a slow but steady rebound from current prices.

So if he (and Goldman Sachs and everybody else) just happens to be wrong about that, then Texas' books are cooked.  Sid Miller's cupcakes are going to be in a pickle and Dan Patrick's plans to cut property taxes will turn into a big pot of stew for him to steam in.  Oh, and the governor-elect's ideas about spending more money on road and highway improvements go off into the ditch as well.

A sustained period of $40 dollar oil is going to crush the hardhats in the oil patch, eventually catch some petroleum engineers in its undertow, wreck the state's finances, and maybe even screw up the political futures of a few Texas Republicans along the way.  So keep your fingers and toes crossed that the sheikhs are bluffing, and that WTI will rebound just as soon as all those TeaBaggers in the sticks buy a few more big SUVs and new Ford pickups.

I suppose the truly desperate among us could pray for a refinery explosion or two, maybe another terrorist attack, or a wider war in the Middle East to disrupt production.  Oversupply being what it is, when Mitch McConnell is kneeling over the Keystone XL pipeline with a wrench, you know things are already bad.

Socratic Gadfly has more.  Update: And so does Charles, but without mentioning much about the future price of crude's impacts.  And Lisa Gray has this.

If you've lived in Houston long, you recognize this moment: the haunting, suspended-in-motion months when we all know that the city's roller-coaster economy has entered a dive, but while we still hope that maybe it won't be bad, that maybe Texas is diversified now, that maybe OPEC or Libya or something — anything — will change.

Sure, there've been oil-related layoffs here and there, and sure, people are asking questions about loans and banks and the risks that frackers have assumed. But with oil under $50 a barrel, Houston remains eerily normal. We see the car crash coming, but haven't felt the impact; the ball, thrown in the air, slows at the top of its arc; the hurricane might still change its path.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is girding its loins for what is likely to be an ugly legislative session as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff highlights the ongoing voting rights dispute in Pasadena by showing how fallacious the city's argument for changing to a hybrid At Large/district model for its City Council is.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos and Daily Kos has heard whispers about the possibility of accepting federally expanded Medicaid in Texas. She wonders how can this be sold to far right wingers like Dan Patrick and the tea party ultra conservatives. If expanded will Medicaid be called Jesus Care or Koch Care?

As the 84th Texas Legislature prepares to convene, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs says, "Kansas-sippi here we come!"

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know what the difference is between Henry Cuellar and the Republicans who kiss Wall Street ass-ets? Really? Is there any difference?

Neil at Neil Aquino.com likes how the 1976 Walter Matthau movie Bad News Bears takes a swipe at liberalism.

Burnt Orange Report took note of the Longview News-Journal's recent op-eds on the upcoming legislative session.

After a holiday hiatus, Texpate rounded up some of the latest goings-on at Houston City Hall.

Dos Centavos gave us the heads-up on the Americans United program next month called "The Bible in Texas Schools? Why Not?"

And Texas Vox is looking for people to work with Public Citizen for the legislative session.

=====================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Somervell County Salon notes that AGTX-elect Ken Paxton took the baton from Greg Abbott and immediately stepped on the line.

Juanita Jean took a poke at state Rep. Cecil Bell, and his mean-spirited bill to punish courthouse workers who might issue marriage licenses for gay couples in Texas.

Durrell Douglas tells Oprah why their movement will have no "leaders".

Carol Morgan is dreading Tuesday in Austin, as the Lege kicks off with an educational reverse Robin Hood for the wealthy and other bad bills.

Socratic Gadfly has an update on the Dallas Morning News' continuing stumbles in digital marketing.

Prairie Weather caught the $40 billion dollar gift to 'homeland security' (i.e. local police) from Congressional Republicans.

Unfair Park is not a fan of the Jerry Jones-Chris Christie bromance.

The Lunch Tray interviews USDA Under-Secretary Kevin Concannon.

Texans Together examines the elements of an effective pre-K program.

The TSTA blog reminds the Legislature that its obligation is to public, not private, education.

Better Texas Blog has a cheat sheet for the biennial revenue estimate.

jobsanger is still waiting for the GOP to come up with a rationale for the Keystone XL pipeline that isn't based upon lies.

And an activist with the Texas Tar Sands Blockade is suing the Wood County sheriff's department after being tortured while in their custody.  Yes, tortured.

Bonus Sunday Funny for Cowboys fans

And also those of the Oregon Ducks.