Priscilla Owens Bar Assoc ratings published this morning.

[splat@14]

And she had the worst over all rating for members of the Texas Supreme Court. I couldn't attach the pdf file so follow the link, select the poll and then the supreme court for details on the questions and votes.
I wonder if anyone in the Senate reads this stuff?

http://www.hba.org

[converted_democrat]

1. Splat.............

Make copies and send them to your Senator and Rep via fax....They generally look at faxes. Also, you may want to send copies to Reid, Byrd, Nelson, and Lautenburg.

[splat@14]

2. I already attached it to an email to them. Didn't consider the others and

you're probably right about the fax Vs email.
Gracias,
Splat!

[whistle]

3. Worst in what sense......

...here is a piece that may shed a little more light on the subject of Patricia Owens:

<snip>
Owen deserves a vote but not a confirmation
Austin-American Statesman Editorial
Apr 29, 2003

The U.S. Senate is expected to resume debate soon over President Bush's nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears federal appeals from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. We have argued before that she deserved a hearing, and she finally got one from the Senate Judiciary Committee. That said, however, she should not be confirmed.

There's no question that Owen is qualified for the 5th Circuit by her legal training and experience. She was a standout at the top of her Baylor University Law School class; she became a partner at a major Houston law firm, Andrews & Kurth, where she practiced commercial litigation for 17 years; and she was elected in 1994 to the Texas Supreme Court, and re-elected in 2000. She received the highest rating, "well-qualified," from an American Bar Association committee that reviews judicial nominations. But Owen is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse.

One example was the state Supreme Court's interpretation of the then-new Parental Notification Act regarding abortions sought by minors. In early 2000, the nine justices, all Republicans, took up a series of "Jane Doe" cases to determine under what circumstances a girl could get a court order to avoid telling a parent that she intended to get an abortion. Owen and Justice Nathan Hecht consistently argued for interpretations of the law that would make it virtually impossible for a girl to get such an order.

Finally, in one Jane Doe case, another justice complained that "to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

The justice who wrote that was Alberto Gonzales, who is now Bush's general counsel.

Owen also could usually be counted upon in any important case that pitted an individual or group of individuals against business interests to side with business.

<more>
<link> http://www.independentjudiciary.com/news/clip.cfm?NewsClipID=147

[babylonsister]

5. Clarification: Priscilla, not Patricia. nt

[asjr]

6. If we just happened to have a sane and rational person

in the WH her name would already have been withdrawn. Instead the dictator is being stubborn and wants it his way, no matter how much it upsets the nation. The chaos going on now in the Senate is his doing. This whole mess lies at GW's feet.

[murielkane]

12. It's not just stubbornness -- it's a power trip

I mean, any wimp could nominate well-qualified, moderate judges and get them passed. But nominating judges who are manifestly unqualified and shoving them down people's throats anyway -- that's a sign of *real* power.

So very much that this administration does seem to be based on exercising power for the sake of power. (For example, opening up ANWR to drilling, which even the oil companies aren't too thrilled about.) Their motto is, "We can do anything to you that we like, and you can't stop us."

In that sense, these judicial nominations are the domestic equivalent of flushing a Koran down the toilet. Their purpose is to show all of us that raw power is the rule of the day and whether the people in power are right or wrong or outright frigging crazy is of no relevance.

Ultimately, they are unwilling to be bound by justice or morality or even common sense, because any of those might set some sort of limit to their exercise of total, absolute power. In fact, the logic of power will increasingly compel them to act deliberately in ways that are unjust, immoral, and self-destructive, just to prove that they can.

It could be quite a show.

[LTRS]

14. Bush is a sick individual

I think he actually gets off on this kind of thing. It might be about power, but whatever its about, he is motivated by something that is pathological in its degree.

I don't know how many people watched the RNC convention prior to the 2000 election, but he was sitting in a chair with his legs spread as the final votes were cast to confirm his nomination. The camera had cut to him at that very moment, and disgustingly enough, you could see right before your eyes -- his dick get rock hard under his pants. The camera cut away fairly quickly, but I will never forget the impression that few seconds left with me. It made me sick and I thought to myself, this is a man who really, really gets off on power.

[glitch]

17. Absolutely right on - very Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[K8-EEE]

10. but...but...SHE'S A SHARECROPPER'S DAUGHTER!

Isn't that THE most important qualification for lifetime judiciary appointments? Also she won her election by over 75%! Amazingly she ran against Saddam's old opponent, Mr. Nobody.

[Hand]

15. That's the other one...

Brown's the sharecropper's daughter. I don't know anything about Owen's parentage, although to paraphrase the great Bo Diddley, "The stork that brought her into the world oughtta be arrested."

I think Owens polled even lower figures than Brown when she was reconfirmed in Texas--unopposed, same as Brown in California. Those election numbers are a load of BS, except insofar as they reflect that a significant number of voters were well enough informed that they DIDN'T want these idiots to continue in office.

[Demit]

4. Thanks for the link. Lawyers are in the best position to know the facts

about judges. One small note: her name is Owen, not Owens. (I just think that getting that right is better than not.)

[TheGunslinger]

7. Here's the direct lnk

http://www.hba.org/Evaluation05.pdf

Number of Attorneys Rating This Judge: 350

Overall rating? Outstanding: 130 39.5% _Acceptable: 50 15.2% _Poor: 149 45.3

[splat@14]

8. Thanks Guns!

[annabanana]

9. But she's a "nice lady"... so

Why should we object?

[Czolgosz]

21. Personally, she's not a nice lady. When new judges come to the court,

they traditionally honor the non-partisan hiring commitments made by their predecessors. Owen walked in the office and immediately fired the non-partisan staff to replace them with her partisan hacks. I'm just sayin'

[spooky3]

18. How does one get a "qualified" rating with these #s?

I mean, I understand how to add "Outstanding" and "Acceptable" to get a higher # than the % for "Poor" but an employee deemed only "acceptable" would be let go by General Electric and many other major corporations.

I think they need a different rating scale.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Owens aka Judge Enron is needed by * for a purpose, What?

I supsect that she has been instructed to make sure that * and Cheney will not be required to testify (for reasons of National Security, of course) and that any information that might be damaging to them will be suppressed when the Skilling and Lay criminal trials start next year and when the Enron civil trail moves forward (if Gov Terminator does not manage to squash that).

Will she be in the chain of appeals for the Houston court? Just a hunch, but they seem to desperately need this bimbo on the courts. If she is in the appeals process, then even if the preciding judge tells them they have to appear, they can appeal to her.

PLUS, if the feds want to cook a deal with Lay to keep him quiet about Bush involvement in Enron the best way to do it is to do a sham prosecution, get a "conviction" then have it overturned on a technicality on appeal where the judge will claim there was an error made by the prosecution. Again, if Owens is the judge, she could be counted upon to go along with this since she is, after all Judge Enron.

[splat@14]

13. More sinister than I gave em credit for....

Also connects to a story from an earlier thread regarding possible Enron/Bush ties to the "Money for oil" scam.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052105Madsen/052105madsen.html

I couldn't really understand why Bush wanted to renominate her other than just to be a prick. Your post solidifies a darker motive.

[realFedUp]

16. David Savage of the LA Times apparently doesn't

http://www.liberaloasis.com

May 20, 2005 PERMALINK
The LA Times *Hearts* Priscilla
(posted May 19 11 PM ET)
(minor edit May 20 10:30 AM ET)

All of us committed to saving our judiciary from corporate stooges and fringe fundamentalists should look at yesterday’s LA Times profile of Priscilla Owen, written by David Savage.

Because it shows how hard it is to get the facts out.

The wet kiss headline is “Judge Seen as Conservative, Fair”.

And it just gets worse from there.

Savage uses the GOP talking points early in the piece, telling his readers that Owen “comes across as a mainstream conservative.”

He quotes a total of four people that he interviewed. All the quotes are pro-Owen

continued

[bobbieinok]

19. but doesn't bushco only listern to FEDERALIST SOCIETY, totally RW?????

[Czolgosz]

20. Don't forget, Owen's Republican colleagues criticize her judicial activism

Here is what Judge Owen's own Republican colleagues have said about her opinions (this focuses only on 2001 to 2004, the time when she was under consideration for appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, so her colleagues knew these comments would be considered):

In the case of In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001), Republican Judge Abbot (where three other Republican Judges also refused to join Judge Owen's opinion) criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion against open government as follows: "the Legislature enunciated a clear and unambiguous policy . . . The Act ‘forcefully articulates a policy of open government.' . . . But if this Court has the power to broaden by judicial rule the categories of information that are ‘confidential under other law,' then" the open government law "is eviscerated from the statute. . . . This not only contradicts the spirit and language of" the law, "it guts it. . . . Today," Judge Owen "abandons strict construction and rewrites the statute."

In the case of Barnett v. Barnett, 67 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2001), Republican Judge Hankinson (joined by three other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion favoring insurance companies: Judge Owen's "broad holding ignores not only the lack of clear and manifest proof that Congress intended ERISA to preempt state marital-property law, but" Judge Owen "does precisely what Judge Scalia has cautioned against: ‘decreeing a degree of pre-emption that no sensible person could have intended.'"

In the case of In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), Republican Judge Hankinson (where three other Republican Judge also refused to join with Judge Owen) noted the judicial activism in Judge Owen's opinion leaving children in the possession of violent, cocaine-using, child-abusive parents as follows: Judge Owen's "statement of the issue will come as a surprise to the parties and the court of appeals, as no one has raised, briefed, or addressed this issue at any stage of these proceedings."

In Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sink, 107 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2003), Republican Judge Phillips (joined by two other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion favoring insurance companies as follows: "Because the plaintiff in this case is entitled to recovery on the plain terms of the policy, I respectfully dissent. . . . In fact, until today no court has enforced a permission requirement unless the insurance policy explicitly contained such a requirement for temporary substitute automobiles. . . . " Judge Owen's reading of the insurance contract has been characterized as "an attempt to shift the loss to an innocent victim rather than having the insurance company pay for the negligent conduct of its insured."

In Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004), Republican Judge Schneider (now a federal judge whose appointment was never contested), joined by two other Republican Judges, criticized Judge Owen's activist opinion as follows: Judge Owen "permits a case to be dismissed for want of prosecution without holding a separate dismissal hearing. Because I conclude that the plain language of the rule requires a separate hearing, I respectfully dissent. . . . I would follow . . . precedent to conclude that the trial courts inherent authority does not permit dismissal when the only evidence of dilatoriness is the failure to appear at a single hearing."

Finally, here's one you will love, Scott. In CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Com'n, 143 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. 2004), Republican Judge Brister (joined by three other Republican Judges) criticized Judge Owen's activist anti-consumer opinion as follows: "The Legislature said nothing about interest. Nevertheless," Judge Owen "holds utilities are potentially entitled to billions of dollars in interest (to be collected from consumers through higher prices) . . . . In a government of separated powers, it is not our role to decide whether paying interest to utilities during 2002 and 2003 would be wise, or fair, or what we would do in similar circumstances."



Of course, Judge Owen’s Republican judicial colleagues were significantly more candid about her record of judicial activism before her 2001 nomination. As just one example, in the case of In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000), Republican Judge Gonzalez (who is now President Bush’s attorney general) criticized Judge Owen’s dissenting opinion, which would have ignored the law regarding a woman’s right to control her own reproductive destiny, as “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”