PREJUDGING: Texas Supreme Court Justice ACCUSES Democrats of planning to CHEAT in 2024
Most people have accepted that this country isn’t lucky enough to have “safe spaces” free from political influence or political views. This has been amply demonstrated by comments made recently by one of Texas’s most powerful judges. A video clip is currently ping-ponging around the country, one in which Texas Supreme Court Justice John Devine strongly implies that the Democrats and President Joe Biden will cheat in 2024 to stay in office and keep Donald Trump out.
In case you were wondering, Supreme Court Justices in Texas are elected, not appointed, and claim party membership. You might even be shocked to learn that the current court is entirely Republican.
But it’s not supposed to be this way, not supposed to be this open, this cynical, wrong, or pandering.
Devine gave the keynote speech at a 2023 Christmas event hosted by the Texas Tea Party Republican Women’s group. The video of that speech belatedly reemerged this week and went viral after being covered in the April 5th edition of The Texas Tribune.
“Do you really think the Democrats are going to roll over and let Trump be president again? You think they’re just going to go away, all of a sudden find Jesus and [there will] be an honest election? I don’t think so.”
Devine is no stranger to controversy or right-wing causes.
He is a former anti-abortion activist — a position that would never exclude him from sitting on the bench in Texas except that he also claims that there is no separation between church and state.
He claims that it “doesn’t exist,” despite the clear prohibition in the First Amendment against the establishment of a state religion. (It should be noted that in a separate case, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a statue of the Ten Commandments could be placed in a public park).
Additionally, a judge of any kind shouldn’t be opining on legal matters outside the context of a case in front of them. Just ask any recent nominee to the United States Supreme Court; “I cannot comment on hypotheticals…” (Ironically, that is the correct legal and ethical answer).
Last, in the 1990s, Devine was the Texas State district judge who fought to keep a copy of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, a fight that he eventually won.
That line between church and state may be eroding after all.
Regardless, Devine has every right to be a conservative justice, and he’s entitled to his personal views on Church and State. But for our system of government to work, there has to be a line between what the founders intended to be the two political branches and the third branch, which would be apolitical and guard against what John Adams called the “tyranny of the majority.”
The Bill of Rights was codified precisely because the Founders didn’t want laws passed that allowed unpopular rights like “unreasonable searches and seizures.” A large majority of the country may want to ban carrying handguns, but the 2nd Amendment provides the minority “civil rights” to do so. (Or at least that’s how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted).
A non-political branch must be around to protect rights that are so sacred that even a majority cannot overrule those rights/values without a constitutional amendment — the passage of which is an arduous and daunting task.
But once the third branch becomes politicized, it doesn’t matter if it’s toward the left or the right. There is no one left to protect the “minority” of citizens whose very rights are under threat. The judge will rule according to the party’s position.
Devine’s comments are so obviously in furious opposition to the legitimacy of a Democratic administration that one can rightly ask why he would be needed as a “Justice” in the first place. Given the topic, one could predict his vote ahead of time. Just put a placard in his seat.
Judicial partisanship is now exploding across the country. Indeed, one could argue that the election of state judges is one of the biggest mistakes in an otherwise elegantly designed, radically progressive governmental structure (as composed at the time.)
Lifetime appointments ensure that federal judges feel free to rule however they read the law, whether the majority agrees with the ultimate decision or not. But state judges must worry about their reelection.
Imagine being a state judge in a small town overseeing a migrant’s case for massive damages against the hiring practices of the town’s largest employer and business.
Decisions should not be made to appease a Texas Tea Party group. And a Justice certainly should not give speeches that inflame an already volatile country.
Even worse, Article III federal judges were the only branch that ensured a transfer of presidential power pursuant to an election.
This justice doesn’t see it happening in 2024. And that’s a problem.
This report is based on original reporting by Robert Downen of The Texas Tribune.
This is an opinion piece, and the opinions and assertions herein represent the author’s views alone.
I can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com and on “X” @JasonMiciak
