Ya thats totally what we are talking about
hensley17-1572pubwarn111219.pdf
145.80 KB
Ya thats totally what we are talking about
Is the media?
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
Prove she would be impartial given her obvious partiality when performing her extrajudicial duty.
Strzok did it.
Maybe you can remind us what happened to Strzok on August 10, 2018.
Not sure the validity of the comparison anyway. An FBI agent’s personal text messages versus a judge openly refusing to marry gay couples. Whatever.
He wasn’t fired because he couldn’t separate bias from his job.
You’re not sure of the validity? Strange. Strzok put people in prison. This woman is pointing people down the road.
She should perform the marriages or resign. But get consistent. If Strzok can set bias aside, so can everyone else.
He was quite literally fired for his anti-Trump text messages. Was that not a sign of potential bias or are you saying he wasn’t biased but fired for other reasons?
I’m being completely consistent. If Strzok’s beliefs led to partiality or significant fear of partiality, he should have been dismissed. If this judge’s beliefs and actions lead to significant concern for lack of impartiality, she should also be dismissed.
You should have read the article, not just the headline. The Fumbling Bumbling Idiots refused to comment.
Steel-W0LF:
Can I go to the DMV and apply for food stamps?
Ya thats totally what we are talking about




You should let @LucyLou be the spokesman, she’s on the right track.
That’s not this works…
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
Prove she would be impartial given her obvious partiality when performing her extrajudicial duty.
Strzok did it.
Maybe you can remind us what happened to Strzok on August 10, 2018.
Not sure the validity of the comparison anyway. An FBI agent’s personal text messages versus a judge openly refusing to marry gay couples. Whatever.
He wasn’t fired because he couldn’t separate bias from his job.
You’re not sure of the validity? Strange. Strzok put people in prison. This woman is pointing people down the road.
She should perform the marriages or resign. But get consistent. If Strzok can set bias aside, so can everyone else.
He was quite literally fired for his anti-Trump text messages. Was that not a sign of potential bias or are you saying he wasn’t biased but fired for other reasons?
I’m being completely consistent. If Strzok’s beliefs led to partiality or significant fear of partiality, he should have been dismissed. If this judge’s beliefs and actions lead to significant concern for lack of impartiality, she should also be dismissed.
You should have read the article, not just the headline. The Fumbling Bumbling Idiots refused to comment.
I did. Trump had plenty of quotes.
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
Prove she would be impartial given her obvious partiality when performing her extrajudicial duty.
Strzok did it.
Maybe you can remind us what happened to Strzok on August 10, 2018.
Not sure the validity of the comparison anyway. An FBI agent’s personal text messages versus a judge openly refusing to marry gay couples. Whatever.
He wasn’t fired because he couldn’t separate bias from his job.
You’re not sure of the validity? Strange. Strzok put people in prison. This woman is pointing people down the road.
She should perform the marriages or resign. But get consistent. If Strzok can set bias aside, so can everyone else.
He was quite literally fired for his anti-Trump text messages. Was that not a sign of potential bias or are you saying he wasn’t biased but fired for other reasons?
I’m being completely consistent. If Strzok’s beliefs led to partiality or significant fear of partiality, he should have been dismissed. If this judge’s beliefs and actions lead to significant concern for lack of impartiality, she should also be dismissed.
You should have read the article, not just the headline. The Fumbling Bumbling Idiots refused to comment.
You should read the reprimand. The state commission heard her argument and said it wouldn’t suffice.
145.80 KB
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
WuWei:
SottoVoce:
Prove she would be impartial given her obvious partiality when performing her extrajudicial duty.
Strzok did it.
Maybe you can remind us what happened to Strzok on August 10, 2018.
Not sure the validity of the comparison anyway. An FBI agent’s personal text messages versus a judge openly refusing to marry gay couples. Whatever.
He wasn’t fired because he couldn’t separate bias from his job.
You’re not sure of the validity? Strange. Strzok put people in prison. This woman is pointing people down the road.
She should perform the marriages or resign. But get consistent. If Strzok can set bias aside, so can everyone else.
He was quite literally fired for his anti-Trump text messages. Was that not a sign of potential bias or are you saying he wasn’t biased but fired for other reasons?
I’m being completely consistent. If Strzok’s beliefs led to partiality or significant fear of partiality, he should have been dismissed. If this judge’s beliefs and actions lead to significant concern for lack of impartiality, she should also be dismissed.
You should have read the article, not just the headline. The Fumbling Bumbling Idiots refused to comment.
I did. Trump had plenty of quotes.
Ok, if you say so.
Steel-W0LF:
I’m not playing word games. Can I go to the DMV and apply for food stamps? If the answer is “no” then is the DMV denying me a service by telling me which office does do that service?
By your definition: yes. Which is idiocy at its finest.
That analogy doesn’t hold up. She does provide the service already. Just for the “right” people only, though.
She’s not providing a religious service. It’s a government service. These citizens pay her salary and her benefits. She doesn’t get to pick and choose which citizens she is going to deny.
Doesn’t matter.
The “service” is not part of her duties for her position.
She can pick and choose however she sees fit.
The greater problem is Texas’s antiquated judicial system. There does not even need to be Justices of the Peace in this day and age.
How do you handle cases involving small dollar amounts or evictions for not paying rent, etc?
Hasn’t this been settled in the Supreme Court that if a persons strong religious belief in traditional marriage that they cannot be forced to perform services for a same sex wedding. Officiating a wedding is a service and she is entitled to “refuse service”. if she wants too. IMO
I think the article was clear that she stated she would not be performing same sex marriages after the SCOTUS ruling came down and she also said she would recuse herself in cases involving homosexuals. That is the ethical thing to do something liberal activist judges are incapable of.
Her position is an elected office so this appears to be a political hit job if the voters don’t like her position on this issue they can vote her out.
I do not believe she can volunteer to officiate heterosexual marriages but not same sex ones.
Her job doesn’t make her do marriages at all.
“The commission, in its warning made public on Monday, said Hensley’s unequal way of performing her extrajudicial duties violates the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by “casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.””
No it doesn’t. Just because she believes that people of the same sex should not be married doesn’t mean she believes they shouldn’t be able to collect the $500 someone owes them.
“The commission, in its warning made public on Monday, said Hensley’s unequal way of performing her extrajudicial duties violates the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by “casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.””
No it doesn’t. Just because she believes that people of the same sex should not be married doesn’t mean she believes they shouldn’t be able to collect the $500 someone owes them.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct appears to disagree with you - and they’re the ones who get to decide.
DougBH:
“The commission, in its warning made public on Monday, said Hensley’s unequal way of performing her extrajudicial duties violates the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct by “casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.””
No it doesn’t. Just because she believes that people of the same sex should not be married doesn’t mean she believes they shouldn’t be able to collect the $500 someone owes them.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct appears to disagree with you - and they’re the ones who get to decide.
I don’t question their authority, only their reasoning.
Safiel:
The greater problem is Texas’s antiquated judicial system. There does not even need to be Justices of the Peace in this day and age.
How do you handle cases involving small dollar amounts or evictions for not paying rent, etc?
As it is done in Florida.
Small claims go to the County Courts. Anything from $1.00 to $15,000 goes to the County Court. Anything from $15,001 and up goes to the Circuit Court. Misdemeanor criminal cases and minor civil violations also go to the County Court. The Circuit Court handles felony criminal cases and major civil violations. It also handles most family and real estate cases, including evictions.
Most cases now handled in Justice of the Peace Courts would be moved to the County Court.
A much simpler system for all litigants to navigate and it ends the current situation where courts have overlapping jurisdiction, both as to territory and amount in question. In any given civil litigation, it is quite possible to pursue it in several courts. That is not a good thing.
In a two tier trial court system, such as Florida, a litigant KNOWS right away where he or she must file. Small claims go to the county court. Large claims go to the circuit court. Divorce is filed in the circuit court.
You appear to be arguing that just because she won’t marry gay couples, it doesn’t mean she won’t be fair to them in court.
But that’s not an accurate response to the Commission’s reasoning - the issue is not about logical causation, it’s about appearance.
She has cast doubt on her ability to be fair.
Again, I don’t agree with that.
It doesn’t cast any doubt with me of her ability to be fair. Has there been any sort of history of her prejudice against gays when handling cases? If not, its a made up thing.
Again, I don’t agree with that.
It doesn’t cast any doubt with me of her ability to be fair. Has there been any sort of history of her prejudice against gays when handling cases? If not, its a made up thing.
Well, I understand that in your subjective opinion, her actions have not caused you to doubt her ability to be fair.
But as far as I know, you’re not a homosexual, so there’s no reason to think that they would. This isn’t about your opinion, it’s about what the Commission believes - in this case, whether this lady is damaging the credibility of the legal system in her own small way, or not.
LucyLou:
Steel-W0LF:
I’m not playing word games. Can I go to the DMV and apply for food stamps? If the answer is “no” then is the DMV denying me a service by telling me which office does do that service?
By your definition: yes. Which is idiocy at its finest.
That analogy doesn’t hold up. She does provide the service already. Just for the “right” people only, though.
She’s not providing a religious service. It’s a government service. These citizens pay her salary and her benefits. She doesn’t get to pick and choose which citizens she is going to deny.
Doesn’t matter.
The “service” is not part of her duties for her position.
She can pick and choose however she sees fit.
She can pick only Christians to marry? Or only whites?
Doesn’t matter.
The “service” is not part of her duties for her position.
She can pick and choose however she sees fit.
Obviously she can’t since the commission has reprimanded her publicly. The only step left if she continues is removal by the Texas Supreme Court.