[capocchio]

Therefore, absent the tendency of most judges to obey the law, I would never have won most of my federal cases which (with only two exceptions) for independent or third-party candidates. (The exceptions were Jerry Brown, Democrat, and George Bush, Republican.)

Would you please translate. Just what are you trying to say: were you representing third party candidates, what connection do third party candidates have to the Texas case and what are Jerry Brown and Bush doing in there, as they are not third party?

Between the double negatives, the missing word (s?) and the lack of readily discernable connection, I'm not sure how your examples illustrate your point.

[Congressman Billybob]

You miss the point of the freedoms in the First Amendment. If they only apply to some people, and not others, they are fatally defective. If judges were prejudiced by their own political backgrounds (which are always either Republican or Democrat) they would tend to protect the freedoms of candidates and voters associated with the current two "major parties" and give short shrift to other political actors.

The fact that, in my long experience, very few federal judges have shown such a prejudice, supports my point that most federal judges are able and willing to follow the law where it leads, on behalf of any person who claims the protection of his/her rights under the First Amendment.

Got it?

John / Billybob