Yes, I'd say the Opinion and the two concurring opinions misinterpreted the legislature's intent of the law.
And obviously the Legislature felt that way too. I like Justice Hecht's comments about it:
"Why would six Justices on this Court ignore fifty-six legislators if they were trying to follow the law rather than their own personal views?
Nine senators and forty-seven representatives joined in the brief. I do not recall another case in which the Court received an amicus brief on behalf of so many legislators attempting to assist the Court in analyzing the legislative history of a statute, yet the Court dismisses the amici as being less than a third of the Members of the Legislature."
The Court's Opinion gave a weak response to that, I thought.
I see why the Court bashes Hecht so much--he's a straight-shooter. I agree with him that the Court's Opinion took much away from the Legislature's efforts and intent of this law.
And I see in the NRO article, the Court's Opinion was considered "far-fetched":
"In its first cases under the law, the Texas supreme court — with Gonzales in the majority — interpreted this judicial-bypass provision broadly. So broadly, according to one furious dissenting justice, that the law itself was gutted.
The dissenters made a strong case that the court's reading of the law was far-fetched. In Gonzales's defense, however, it should be noted that their predictions have not been borne out: Judicial bypasses have been rare."
But in my opinion it doesn't matter whether the judicial bypasses have been rare or not---the Court has done damage to the law. Their views are obviously not what the Texas Legislature had in mind when they spent those long weeks of hard work to get a good law in place.
So I dissent, and I question Gonzales and the others' judgment on this.
And I feel sorry that Judge Owen was cheated out of a federal judge position. She and the dissenters were right.
And I feel sorry that Judge Owen was cheated out of a federal judge position. She and the dissenters were right.