Judge Smacks Down Texas Legislators Even Harder

A couple weeks ago I reported on the Texas judge who delivered a sharp smackdown to some Texas legislators who filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging a new anti-choice law they passed. Not to be deterred by reality, the legislators then filed the same motion again — and got it turned down again. And then to show just how immune they are to reason, they filed a third time. And this time the judge had had enough. In response to the second motion, the judge wrote:

On August 9, 2011, the Court denied a similar motion filed by Senator Patrick and Representative Miller. The Court denies this one for the same reason, namely, counsel for the parties in this case are more than capable of advocating for their clients’ positions without outside input. This is especially true where, as here, that input comes in the form of, among other things, commentary by legislators on “the clear legislative intent of H.B. 15′s severability clause.”

If the severability clause as clear as the Representative indicate, their interpretive assistance will not be required. And if it is not, it would be unhelpful, if not improper, for the Court to look to statements made by a subset of the Legislature, in a document prepared for the purpose of litigation, to determine legislative intent.

As stated in its August 9, 2011, Order, the Court will not allow this lawsuit to be used as a vehicle for advancing a political agenda, or as a platform for rhetorical grandstanding. Although the outcome of this case will likely have repercussions outside these proceedings, the resolution of this case will depend solely upon the legal issues presented. The Court’s time is better spent considering the arguments of the parties than addressing the opportunistic petitions of outsiders.

As harsh as the first one. But not as harsh as the third one:

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically the latest in an unfortunately long line of motions for leave to file an amicus brief. Having reviewed the document, the relevant law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and order DENYING the motions:

The Court has already turned down two extremely tempting offers to transform this case from a boring old federal lawsuit into an exciting, politically charged media circus. As any competent attorney could have predicted, the Court declines the latest invitation as well.

However, the Court is forced to conclude that Allen E. Parker, Jr., the attorney whose signature appears on this motion, is anything but competent. A competent attorney would not have filed this motion in the first place; if he did, he certainly would not have attached exhibits that are both highly prejudicial and legally irrelevant; and if he foolishly did both things, he surely would not be so prejudicial as to file such exhibits unsealed. A competent attorney who did these things would be deliberately disrespecting this Court and knowingly shirking his professional responsibilities, offenses for which he would be lucky to retain his bar card, much less an intact bank balance.

For Mr. Parker’s sake, and because the Court has not time to hold a sanctions hearing–in part because it must take time out of deciding the actual legal issues in this case to address the self-serving entreaties of attention-seekers like Mr. Parker–the Court assumes Mr. Parker is as incompetent as he appears. Rather than sanction him, the Court simply does what Mr. Parker would have done if he was a competent professional, and seals attachment 7 to his motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Parker’s motion for leave to File an Amicus Brief is DENIED.

I believe Mr. Parker should shut up now, don’t you?

"I have a nightmare that some idiot out there kills A.J. Wouldn't his followers have ..."

Jones: Democrats Use MS-13 to Kill ..."
"If the U.S. military is "smoking" MS-13 all over the country, the fake news media ..."

Jones: Democrats Use MS-13 to Kill ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ben P

    FYI: THE “prejudicial exhibits” were pictures of aborted fetuses.

  • Chiroptera

    Is it just me, or is anyone else hoping they file a fourth motion?

  • Mr Ed

    Any one else think these guys are just a British accent short of being a Monty Python sketch?

  • Didaktylos

    Man – that judge was pissed off.

  • Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Man – that judge was pissed off.

    There are two ways to tell a judge is pissed off: one is when he chews you up one side and down the other. That’s bad. What’s worse is when he doesn’t.

    You find out that it’s the latter when the Court calendar has an entry for a sanctions hearing. However, there’s still hope — unless it’s scheduled outside of normal hours, because that’s the only way the Court can fit a sua sponte sanctions hearing into its schedule.

  • MikeMa

    This judge will no doubt recognize Mr Parker’s competence if he ever has any other business before his court. Cool, unless you’ve hired Mr Parker that is.

  • Damn activist judges!

  • chiroptera writes:

    Is it just me, or is anyone else hoping they file a fourth motion?


    And I would give – well – a sizeable pile of money to hear that order read by John Cleese in his Monty Python Barrister voice. Because that would be the shizznit. And then attorney assface’s name would be known on youtube forever.

  • randomfactor42

    Sounds like a level-headed jurist. Wonder why Bush the Elder appointed him?

  • bksea

    “Wonder why Bush the Elder appointed him?”

    Don’t you remember? Bush Sr. is a socialist. He raised taxes. Only socialists raise taxes.

  • Tualha

    Hey, Bush the Younger appointed John E. Jones III. Maybe there just aren’t that many really bad judges to choose from. Well, Roy Moore comes immediately to mind. Bet all the GOP candidates would like him for SCOTUS.

  • fastlane

    OBI has the right idea. Somebody email this link to Mr. Cleese and see if he’ll read it and put it on youtube!!

  • Chiroptera says:

    August 29, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Is it just me, or is anyone else hoping they file a fourth motion?

    Paging Counsellor Taitz, Paging Counsellor Orly Taitz1

  • MikeMa


    I just did a quick new search for counselor Taitz and found nothing. That 20 large sanction seems to have done the trick unless there is another reason I am not aware of for her absence from the interwebs. Filing stupid, incorrect, incomplete and/or frivolous lawsuits and motions didn’t deter her one bit until the judge fined her. A lovely result.

  • Pen

    That’s the best thing I’ve read all week!

  • Foster Disbelief

    Come on Mr. Parker! File that 4th motion. Remember what Jesus said.

    Matthew 5:10-12

    Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven….

    Think of the rewards in heaven if you throw away your legal career for those poor, defenseless, helpless babies!!!!

    Be a legal martyr Mr. Parker. File the motion!

  • magicthighs

    Snip snap indeed.

  • abb3w

    Or perhaps the info might be forwarded to the Daily Show; John Lithgow has done a few readings for them, IIR.

  • donkensler

    Yeah, I was thinking Lithgow.

    I’ve always wondered what an opinion would look like when the judge is really, really pissed off. Now I know.

  • abb3w

    The classic rebuke is Bradshaw v Unity Marine: “But at the end of the day, even if you put a calico dress on it and call it Florence, a pig is still a pig.”