CHIEF JUSTICE JIMMY BLACKLOCK STUDYING HIS NEXT MOVE

The Achillies Heal move of every party operating outside the law is, the myth they have the upper hand.  They inevitably fail to check their flank.  Adult Probation is playing the myth of the upper hand along with Chief Justice Blacklock.  I am on their left flank.

Strategy is found in the great treatise of chess, and War.  I hardly doubt anyone in Cameron County who works for the governing entities has ever read Robert Massey's "Peter the Great."  To a strategist it is a great read.  Mr. Massey details Peter the Great's every move in his many wars.  Peter the Great may be one of the greatest strategists in history. He is certainly in the top 3. 

He understood all too well never rely on the myth of the upper hand.  

So where are we? 

BELOW IS IN A BRIEF CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKLOCK WILL SEE AS SOON AS HE GETS TO WORK IN THE MORNING.  IT IS ALSO IN THE COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

He will play it simple on the notion he has the upper hand.  He knows AG Paxton has zero regard for the law.  He knows AG Paxton will fashion an argument the doctrine of "sincerely held religious belief," remains unresolved, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to not reverse the caselaw that no such doctrine exists. 

I will be honest.  The lawyers for Kin Davis were pathetic.  Literally, the opening sentence in her Brief was to say five lawyers on the Court decided the case.  That is an insult to the Court not even I would lodge. On both key points of law, "sincerely held religious belief", and the awarding of damages based solely on emotional distress, Kim Davis's lawyers agreed they could find no Supreme Court authority to support their argument.  It was hardly a brief based in law.  So maybe the issue remains open for a better case which supports "sincerely held religious beliefs."

But as I have noted, marriage is merely an act of civil contract and carries no religious impediment to enforcement of the contract. 

THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, AND COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

We begin with the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), Davis took matters into her own hands.

“[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” @ Obergefell , 135 S. Ct. at 2604–05.

But as a learned jurist well studied in the laws, Justice Blacklock knew or should have known Blackstone established Liberty as preserved in our Constitution as fluid and subject to fluctuation. On this subject Sir William Blackstone well remarks: ” The absolute rights of every Englishman (which taken in a political and extensive sense, are usually called their liberties) as they are founded on nature and reason, so they are coeval with our form of government, though subject at times to fluctuate and change; their establishment (excellent as it is) being still human.” Book 1, Ch I. pg. 123

The law at the time of the comment to Canon 4 was so well-established Chief Justice Blacklock had to have known within weeks the Supreme Court would uphold the law of no religious accommodation but nonetheless ordered the religious accommodation into the law. [Based on the denial of Kim Davis’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the matter is clearly resolved and this court’s Comment in Canon 4, clearly violates the constitution, and the well-established law at the time Chief Justice Blacklock agreed to the comment in Canon 4.]

The comment in Canon 4 is as follows: “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”

Not only does the directive in Canon 4 comment section violate all known law at the time it was ordered published, but it also negates an actual Canon, without any compliance with the law for amending a Canon of Judicial Conduct.

Canon 3B6 provides: (6) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.”

Chief Justice Blacklock has no known constitutional or statutory authority to negate a Canon on Judicial Conduct.

From Kim Davis Writ of Certiorari, page 2: The Writ is readily available on the Supreme Court internet page under cause no. 25-125.

“If ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it.”

Kim Davis conceded to the Supreme Court that her issue of religious accommodation was a question of first impression.  Therefore, Chief Justice Blacklock had no legal basis to put religious accommodation into Canon 4 as a comment, especially days before the Supreme Court refused Kim Davis’ request to provide religious accommodation.  The Sixth Circuit had already held there was no expectation of religious accommodation for anyone who opposed Marriage Equality.

“As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged, Davis’s contention “that the Free Exercise Clause provides her an affirmative defense to liability” is “an issue of first impression.”

Petition for Writ of Certiorari page 4."

We shall see how the Chief Justice Responds.  Every major LGBTQ+ organization in the country awaits his response.

I know full well if I ask federal judge Orlando Garcia, to issue an injunction he will, but then Ken Paxton will seek an emergency appeal.  Given the current well-established status of the law, judge Orlando Garcia will not stay his injunction against Texas.

I do not believe the federal court of appeals will give Ken Paxton the relief he will seek.  Paxton will then seek relief in the form of a Stay from the Supreme Court.

When I file the lawsuit, I expect the self-anointed LGBTQ+ organizations in Texas and the country will oppose me, claiming I am exposing every LGBTQ+ person to reversal of Marriage Equality.  There is nothing new in this nonsense.  

Why should LGBTQ+ people in Texas suffer this indignity for the entire LGBTQ+ persons in the U.S.? I will be shocked if Chief Justice Blacklock does not fight back.  But he does have a simple out, withdraw the comment in light of the Kim Davis order from Monday.