dksuddeth

Although many republicans favor her for her anti-abortion stance it is her 'over-the-top' pro-business stance that will decimate consumer rights and allow business' to profit even greater from their unethical and sometimes illegal methods.

http://www.deal-with-it.org/hearts/owen.htm

study by Texans for Public Justice found that there is a disturbing correlation between Owen’s donors and the lawyers and litigants who have had legal matters in her court. The 2001 Texans for Public Justice report Pay to Play identified the employer and occupation of donors who gave a total of $926,516 to Owen’s 1994 campaign. Lawyers and litigants who were parties to petitions in Owen’s court between 1994 and 1998 provided 43 percent of this money that she raised.

Texans for Public Justice pointed out that "With its PAC and executives giving court members $134,558 since 1993, Enron Corp. was the justices’ biggest source of corporate donations. During this same period the justices received six Enron-related petitions for review. In three of them, Enron’s adversaries sought Supreme Court review and the justices denied review every time. In contrast, the court granted review in two of the three cases in which Enron sought review (66 percent). This is an extraordinary record in a court that accepts just 11 percent of all petitions received. The court then issued opinions favoring Enron in both cases that it heard. Both opinions overturned lower appeals court rulings against Enron and both occurred in 1996, two years after Owen and consultant Karl Rove raised $8,600 from Enron’s PAC and executives."


In another of many conflict of interest examples they provide, TPJ writes: “In another contributor-conflict case, Owen wrote a scathing dissent to a 2000 majority opinion that found a state law unconstitutional because it was written to let a single developer dodge Austin’s water-quality rules (FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin). Owen decried the majority for curtailing the property rights of Freeport McMoRan’s development arm after taking $2,500 from Freeport board members and $45,458 from its lawyers.

Joe Conason: writes in Salon that “Even the most committed conservatives ought to be shocked by his account of her callous handling of a product-liability case in which both Ford Motor and the plaintiffs, whose paralyzed son's enormous medical expenses were ruining their family, sought expedited review. That request was denied for no stated reason, and Owen dithered for 17 months before rendering a baldly biased reversal in favor of Ford. This is what passes for "pro-family" jurisprudence in Texas.”

Joe Conason reported that in 22 out of 26 cases involving her top business donors, she ruled in their favor. He concluded, “If you can afford justice in her court, it’s a very worthwhile investment. She wrote the opinion in a decision that permitted Enron to escape paying $224,989 in school taxes. Imagine what she could do to the law on the Fifth Circuit bench.

As usual, people with such a finely developed ethical sense can be expected to be sanctimonious regarding abortion. Owen is against it, and that, for George Bush and his supposedly ethically oriented supporters, seems to be enough. Lazarus writes “According to Owen, for the teenager to prove she is ‘well informed,’ she must prove — regardless of her own religious background or lack thereof — that she knew about the many religious objections to abortion, and that some women who underwent abortions had serious remorse.” Interestingly, even very conservative Texas judges found this to go way beyond the law. Even then-Justice Alberto Gonzales, now counsel to Bush, was provoked to label Owen's interpretation an "unconscionable act of judicial activism." — Lazarus points out this is “legal code for saying Owen was reading her own anti-abortion views into the law.”

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

*bump*
nobody cares about judicial nominations anymore?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Fourtyrulz

Well it was an interesting read...but how are we supposed to stop her nomination? I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I just don't have any idea where someone would eveb begin something like that. Doesn't the president choose and run the choices through the Senate? Perhaps writing state senators would help, I honestly don't know.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

dksuddeth

good question. Yes, for judicial nominees it's important to let your state senators know how you feel about them.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Yakk

In order to not get through senate hearings, one of two things has to happen.

Either 51 senators (including the VP) have to deny the appointment, or 41 senators have to be willing to keep debate open on the appointment until the appointment falls off the docket (a procedural fillibuster). Possibly there is a way to kill it in committee as well?

A sign of support from your constituents helps give senators the courage to do either of those two things, I would suspect.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.