Susan Criss Lacks Judgment

In order to avoid a primary which she may not be able to win, Susan Criss is now telling other judges what judicial races they should run in, which shows what poor judgment Criss has because such tactics are fruitless.

Justice Phil Johnson, who Criss is running against, is a good and fair judge and, from a Democrat's perspective, one of the only unobjectionable judges on the Texas Supreme Court now.

For Democrats, Criss would be a step in the wrong direction if she were to get the nomination (which seems unlikely).

Before any Democrats automatically reject the idea that Criss would be a worse judge on the Texas Supreme Court than Justice Johnson, please look into Criss's prior judicial decisions.

Criss's prior decisions show that she lacks both judicial temperament and the appropriate respect for the rights set out in the Constitution.

There is a substantive discussion of Criss's most recent bad decision at the Houston Chronicle blog.

The discussion at the Houston Chronicle begins with a report about how the appellate court recently reversed Criss for violating the First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press with an illegal gag order.

Here is an excerpt from the recent opinion which reversed Judge Criss' violation of the First Amendment:

The Texas Constitution affirmatively grants the rights to freedom of speech and of the press: "Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege ...." ... The First Amendment provides, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...." ... Government-imposed secrecy denies the free flow of information and ideas not only to the press but also to the public.... The judiciary, like the legislative and judicial branches, is an agency of democratic government. The public has no less a right under the first amendment to receive information about the operation of the nation's courts than it has to know how other governmental agencies work and to receive other ideas and information.... We conclude that the gag order in this case is unconstitutional under article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution.

In addition to violating the First Amendment, Criss has grossly and intentionally violated the Eighth Amendment in the past, too.

In addition to these Constitutional violations, Criss has been reversed for failing to follow the rules on judicial disqualification for bias, she been reversed failing to follow city ordinances, and in at least two different cases she has been reversed for illegally going far beyond her jurisdiction in a case.

I have different reservations about Judge Yanez who is too progressive to win a statewide judicial race, as I wrote on another blog:

On the left, you have Linda Yanez.

Yanez would represent a change from the current law because she believes that a liquor store ought to be responsible for the damage caused by a drunk driver who bought beer from the store.

Also, Linda Yanez has a different view from the current law because she believes that out-of-state insurance companies ought to have to come to Texas and appear in court when the dispute involves insurance policies sold to Texans.

Between Justice Yanez, Judge Criss, and Justice Johnson, you get one who's too progressive (Yanez), one who constantly shows poor judgment and disrespect for Constitutional rights (Criss), and a decent moderate Republican.

I recommend Justice Johnson.