Texas Judges being Elected

I will be critiquing on article by Michael Dinh appearing in May 4, 2009 in my classmate’s blog, Texas Policy, entitled “Texas Judges being Elected.” The author of this article “Texas Judges being Elected” did very good and interesting job by discussing the partisan political elections of Texas Judges. First, he states the problem that Texas Judges have been accepting campaign contributions from lawyers and businesses that appear in their courts. He argues that the problem has reached ordinary people as well as the Chief Justice of Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson. For Michael, the problem of partisan political election is very difficult to solve, but can be solve by improving the election system we already have. He argues that a constitutional amendment that required two-thirds of the Senate and House can’t be meeting to change the system for Texans elected judges. Michael gives the benefice to elect Judges through the voters: “Electing Texas judges through the voters would also give some accountability to the process.”
Finally, at the very end of his article, Michael makes his proposal. He argues that we could modify the election process by not allowing the judges to declare a political party on the ballot. Such method would allow judges to have more freedom to do the right thing and not feel pressured to make an unpopular choice by outside sources.
Michael did very good argument about the selection of Texas judges in partisan political election but the text lack evidences and statistics to support his ideas and to convince his audience about the urgency to have credible judges who will have the freedom to rule. However, Michael excels in his argument by making his proposal feasible. Our judiciary system should be free from political influence and any others form of influence from lawyers and businesses.

Should Texas State offer a tuition-cap for higher education?

In two decades, education became very expensive and less affordable for the majority of students in Texas. Getting the highest education has become problematic for minorities and low-income students. The university as a center of education and research should open the door to all students who desire a higher education. Tuition cap will not only allow the racial diversity but also create the development of talents. If Texas Legislature doesn’t step up now to put a cap on this increase of tuition, the immediate impact will be clear: thousands of students will be denied access to higher education and hundreds of faculty and staff will be laid off. The consequence should be the jeopardy of higher education. We don’t want this to happen because we believe that education creates sophisticated and accomplished members of our community. My judgment regards the difficulty we students have when paying our tuition fees, caps on tuition will make college more affordable and protect our future as well as the future of the state.
Establishing the tuition cap in colleges and universities has been a discussion between the Legislature and the School Board of Education. The increase in tuition in higher education has led state legislators to introduce bills that would put a cap on tuition increase. As minority, low-income, and international student myself, I know how difficult it can be to come up with the tuition money. I have to work two jobs in order to pay my tuition money. This is not only unfair, but it cause inequality as well. While I have to spend my hours at work, more privileged students can relax from the difficulty from their studies. If this tuition rate would increase further, I could not afford to go to college and to visit this classroom. Be already disadvantaged, my opportunity for my life would be taken away from me. Education is a public service and everybody has the right to better their lives through education. Therefore I am strongly proposing to implement a tuition cap for all Colleges and universities in Texas.

Texas Legislature need to seek cleaner air

I will be critiquing on article by Morgan appearing in April 8, 2009 in my classmate's blog, texaspolitics, entitled "Texas legislatures need to seek cleaner air." The author of this article "Texas legislatures need to seek cleaner air" did very interesting job by discussing the proposed clean air bill by Texas Senator Kip Averitt. First Morgan complains about the pollution impact in the big city such as Dallas, Houston, and San-Antonio. His even going far to address the issue of pollution in rural areas by giving his personal experience as resident of Borger, Texas. For the author of this short article the air in Texas need to be clean. By addressing the issue of pollution in Texas by his personal statement, Morgan article gain credibility. Morgan can do more by using statistics and facts to support his argument. Finally, the editor concludes by making his proposal: his appeals to Texas' legislatures about the necessity to make the environment clean by using investigate procedure. At the very end of his article, Morgan congratulates the Senator Averitt for his effort to propose a bill to clean the air, because Morgan believes the health of Texans can be improve for many years if the bill pass the Legislature.

Stimulus Dollars and Perry

Should Governor Rick Perry accept the stimulus funds provide by federal government? The stimulus funds have been serious issues among lawmakers, particularly with Gov. Rick Perry. Perry rejected $555million of federal stimulus funds in unemployment compensation and many lawmakers have proposed legislation to override his decision.
In this period of financial crisis is very important to set up discussion and not let one person to take a decision. In this term, the lawmakers have the right to seek override the Governor decision. The decision should come from unanimous voice that have already study the problem, and make a proposal to the Governor and tell him where we are in term of employment. The consensus in this case is very important because single action can hurt even more the economic for long time. Stimulus package is not harmful itself. What can be harmful is the government overspending. With good management, and some restriction on spending the stimulus dollars can create more jobs. The unemployment rate is 6.5% in Texas now and is not decreasing but it increasing. That number should make logical appeal to the Governor reason to understand that we are not in “normal” time and the Governor should seek reasonable strategy, and long-term solution to avoid the worst.
I think as a leader Gov. Rick Perry should take time to look at all aspect of the problem and come with better solution with Legislature advice. The time is neither about Republican nor about Democrat, it about save hundred thousand of jobs. I wish the Senate and House will come to a compromise and make together a proposal to how spent stimulus funds. I wish Gov. Rick Perry will reconsider his position and looking for innovative ways to avoid docking Texas taxpayers’ unemployment funds.

And SO IT Ends

I will be analyzing on article by Dave Mann appearing in March 30, 2009 in The Texas Observer blog entitled “And So It Ends.” The author of this article describes how the State Board of Education has proceeding to alter state science standard. The State Board of Education will not require educators to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution, but educators must encourage students to critically analyze all scientific theories. For Mann it not what the Board members did, but how they did it.
He argues that the Board members were supposed to be working on these science standards for a year. For Mann it took more than ten minutes for all members to understand the proposal. Mann is shock to see Board members debating topics such as world choice in the very last day. For the author not only the amendments were inconsistent and poor spelling but also it took a while to get the job done. Poor spelling he says made the proposals hard to read. Mann argues that the amendments were difficult to read, because they were hand-written. His supported his case with the copy of one hand-written amendment proposal considers as a key amendment.
The reader does not need to be familiar of this article to know that it affiliated to liberal blog. Mann argues against social conservative when his said at the end of his article “Again, there may be some maneuvering room there for social conservatives in the future debates, but not much.” Dave Mann doesn’t made successful argument about how the State Board of Education has proceeding to alter state science standard. The text is mal organized with too much paragraphs, and spacing. To make a strong argument, Mann needs to support his argument with credible references sources instead of left-leaning blog (Texas Freedom Network). His also need to make his case by strong evidence and facts instead of general statement. I disagree with this article in two points: first the blog is intended to the social liberal audience and the article it not seen “fair or balance” to allow critical thinking. Second the lack of strong arguments pushes this article back. To make strong argument Mann need to avoid general statement, and use credible source to support his case. In this argument against social conservative, no one doesn’t need to be expert to know that the intended audience is social liberal class.

Justice should be Recession-proof

I will be critiquing on article by the Dallas Morning News editorial board, a group of journalists with wide-ranging areas of expertise appearing in February 27, 2009 edition. The authors of this article “Justice should be recession-proof” argue about the importance for the state to save the civil legal aid because everybody deserves access to justice.
The editorial warns the Texas Legislature about the consequence to let collapse the state’s civil legal aid. For the authors of this article, if the Texas Legislature doesn’t answer the Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson rescue plan to keep the program alive for the next two years, thousands of poor Texans will lose access to legal advice. Yes, the editorial is right because most of person cannot afford to hire a lawyer, especially in this critical time where people are losing their homes and jobs. The editorial supports its claim about why Texas should save the civil legal aid with facts and statistics. About 100,000 Texas annually use the civil legal aid service, and in national level Texas is 43rd nation in per capita revenue spent on civil legal aid. The authors warn that those statistics will be worse if the state fails to take steps. They rely their hope on lawmakers and banks. Lawmakers should consider a significant portion of Jefferson’s request for $ 37 million from general revenue, and should work closely with the Texas Access to Justice Commission, to identify other source to narrow the financial stress. The editorial makes a call to the banks that hold these special accounts that lawyers create to hold client money, which did not complied with the Texas Access to Justice Commission appealed to pay slightly higher interest rates to support the program, to make a commitment.
The authors of this article made successful and real argument about the state of Texas legal aid program and provide some solutions to avoid the collapse of the system so that everybody can deserves access to justice.

Retooling Texas' Judiciary

Should Texas elect its judges? In one of its anonymous editorials of February 12, 2009, Retooling Texas’ Judiciary, the Austin American-Statesman invokes the warning to legislature by chief justice Wallace Jefferson of the Texas Supreme Court about the idea that the federal court will soon force the state to change the rule to select the state judges.
In this editorial Wallace Jefferson states two problems with the current system to choose judges. The first problem is about the finance of campaigns. The majority of contributors to judicial campaigns are lawyers. These people come before the courts asking for favorable decisions in cases. The second problem is about the qualification of the judges who get elected. For Wallace Jefferson most judges get elected because of their party affiliation. He argues that the judiciary system should be politically neutral. The idea to reform the state’s partisan election system for choosing judges has always been evoked in Texas as well as across the nation, but it is the political parties who are most resistant to the change. Change may be coming, warns Jefferson: “It is time for Texas to set a high standard for judicial selection,” and judicial candidates should not be included in straight ticket voting.
I think this article is worth reading because in some way it shows the embarrassing state of the Texas judiciary system. And the editorial concludes that the chief justice is right and the legislature should act. Is the Texas judiciary system so broken?