That’s the trailer park rendition.
Read the opinion.
These are not “Soros judges” they are following the law, because it’s what the Constitution demands.
——-
The Texas Constitution contains this explicit separation of powers provision unlike the federal Constitution which contains no express separation of powers provision. Instead, separation of powers is implied through the federal constitution’s structure, dividing government into three branches, and through vesting into each branch its particular power, legislative, executive, or judicial. U.S. Const., Arts. I, § 1, II, § 1, III, § 1. We have previously held that this textual difference between the United States and Texas constitutions suggests that Texas would “more aggressively enforceseparation of powers between its governmental branches than would the federal government.” See State v. Rhine, 297 S.W.3d 301, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
The 1876 Texas Constitution provides that the office of the Attorney General is in the executive branch. Id. at 879. The constitutional duties of the office are as follows:
The Attorney General shall represent the State in all suits and pleas in the Supreme Court of the State in which the State may be a party, and shall especially inquire into the charter rights of all private corporations, and from time to time, in the name of the State, take such action in the courts as may be proper and necessary to prevent any private corporation from exercising any power or demanding or collecting any species of taxes, tolls, freight or wharfage not authorized by law. He shall, whenever sufficient cause exists, seek a judicial forfeiture of such charters, unless otherwise expressly directed by law, and give legal advice in writing to the Governor and other executive officers, when requested by them, and perform such other duties as may be required by law.
Tex. Const. art. IV, § 22.
Although the duties of the county and district attorney are not enumerated in article V, section 21, our courts have long recognized that, along with various civil duties, their primary function is “to prosecute the pleas of the state in criminal cases.” Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); see also Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 877 (holding that the express provision conferring on the county and district attorneys the authority to represent the State in “the District and inferior courts,” Tex. Const. art. V, § 21, mandates a vertical separation of powers between the Attorney General and the district attorneys in matters of criminal prosecution); see also Baker v. Wade, 743 F.2d 236, 242 n. 28 (5th Cir. 1984) (county and district attorneys have been bestowed with the “exclusive responsibility and control of criminal prosecutions”).
The separation of powers doctrine requires that “any attempt by one department of government to interfere with the powers of another is null and void.” Meshell, 739 S.W.2d at 252. Although one department has occasionally exercised a power that would otherwise seem to fit within the power of another department, courts have approved those actions only when authorized by an express provision of the constitution. Id. “Exceptions to the constitutionally mandated separation of powers are never to be implied in the least; they must be ‘expressly permitted’ by the Constitution itself.” Fin. Comm’n of Tex v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tex. 2014) (quoting Tex. Const. art. II, § 1).
————
The correct fix is to Amend the Constitution and/or the statute, not ignore the law because you don’t like it.
Folks, we aren’t the left. Outcome based judging has no place in a Constitutional Republic.
Classy.
Not.
I’ll take paxton’s evaluation over your Soros bot replies anyday.
Hurl away .
Oh
And bless your heart.
.
Boy, you have alot of nerve, reading, researching and using common sense, along with the law, to form an opinion here on FR.
;)