[The Pack Knight]

Texas has a constitution that creates Paxton’s office and defines its powers. It does not grant him the power to conduct criminal prosecutions without the DA’s consent.

The case that motivated Paxton to fund the primary challengers had nothing to do with anything you wrote here.

[Wallace T.]

One of the nine justices on the Court of Criminal Appeals dissented from the majority opinion. This court overturned the ruling of the lower court, which stated the Texas Attorney General had these powers. I don't see why the majority was right in this instance and the dissenter and the lower court wrong. Paxton had the right to promote primary challengers who would possibly overturn Texas v. Stephens. However, there were only three justices of the eight who held to the limitations on the Attorney General's powers. Even if all three ruled in his favor, the ruling would still stand.

Texas has to be protected from the leftist tactics that have succeeded to flip formerly moderate states like California into the Venezuela of North America. Equally as dangerous as the Democrats are the moderate Republicans, whether on the bench or the Legislature, who are in effect assistant Democrats on numerous social issues.

[Pilsner]

It does not grant him the power to conduct criminal prosecutions without the DA’s consent.

Whoa there, don't go injecting facts into a thread.