Perry names chief of staff Boyd to TX Supreme Court
The appointment of Jeffrey S. Boyd is cronyism, pure and simple. Mr. Boyd has one of the skimpiest resumes I have ever seen for a high judicial appointment:
* Senior partner in a prominent law firm (Thompson & Knight)
* Chief of staff for the governor
* General counsel for the governor
* Deputy attorney general for Greg Abbott and John Cornyn
* President of the Robert W. Calvert American Inn of Court (a service organization)
* Member of the State Bar of Texas
* Judicial experience: none
* * * *
Texas has fourteen courts of appeals. These courts have distinguished, experienced judges. Surely Governor Perry could have filled the vacancy on the Supreme Court with a sitting judge who is worthy of elevation to Texas’s highest court.
This is not the first time Perry has put a staffer on the Court. He appointed his former general counsel, David Medina, to the Court, but he was defeated for reelection in the Republican primary. Perry’s appointees do not have a high survival rate.
BaylorHeel says:
Would you have said the same thing about Wallace Jefferson? When he was initially appointed to the bench he had only been a partner in a law firm. I think it’s safe to say that he’s turned out to be a pretty good pick. Boyd not only has been a partner in a law firm, but he was also head of civil litigation as deputy AG and general counsel for Perry. That’s an impressive resume.
You can question about whether or not Perry is rewarding those close to him, but don’t say Boyd is not qualified.
Reply »
Who cares? says:
David Medina was defeated in the primary runoff. Not the General Election.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Medina was elected to a full six-year term in 2006, and lost his bid for a 2nd full term in the GOP runoff primary this year.
Reply »
paulburka says:
I didn’t say that Boyd was not qualified. I said that there are plenty of outstanding judges on appellate courts who have substantial judicial experience.
Jefferson has been an outstanding chief justice who has not been shy about dissenting.
Reply »
What???? Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Paul:
Your post says the appointment “is cronyism, pure and simple.”
Merriam-Webster definition of cronyism: “partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications”
You go on to say Boyd has “one of the skimpiest resumes I have ever seen…” Definition of skimpy? Deficient in supply or execution.
Then, when called on it, you retort “I didn’t say that Boyd was not qualified.”
Really? And you blog about politicians mincing words and pandering? At this point I’d say you are completely qualified to run for political office.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
My point is that there are many sitting judges who are better qualified than Jeff Boyd to sit on the Supreme Court. That’s why it’s cronyism.
Reply »
Gabby Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Of course it is cronyism. It is what Perry does.
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 11:36 am
Jefferson will likely be in the TX SC until he runs for higher statewide office or dies in office.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
I know nothing, not anything, disqualifying about Boyd. I do not like though that Perry continues to reward those close to him plum appointments. Also he has made a historic number of appointments. Whether they come from his staff or are large contributors the cronyism is past being just pretty obvious. Even musical chars being played by Republicans in 2014 would be better than another Perry term. Maybe one year sometime in the distant future Democrats will be competitive again or Republicans will come to their senses and make a few changes in state government. “The governor’s extensive appointment powers under normal circumstances would not give him or her effective control over the executive branch, the judiciary, or boards and commissions. The extended length of Perry’s tenure has turned this ‘normal circumstances’ theory on its head.”
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Kenneth, Perry ain’t running in 2014 so he’s doing this to preserve his legacy.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
His legacy?
We are the state that elected Ted Cruz. Our congressional delegation has Louie Gohmert and Joe Barton. Legacies here are usually negative.
Any legacy Perry has is one of destroying education, oops, cronyism and the partial destruction of Texas A&M.
He is a joke in 49 other states, a male Sarah Palin.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
SCOTUS Justice Kagan is “the first justice in more than 40 years who had never been a judge”
I’m sure there were many Federal Judges qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice but President Obama picked his solicitor general.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
JBB: Don’t forget Harriet Myers
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
conservatives rose up against Harriet Miers while democrats supported her.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
November 27th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
That part about the Dems is flat-out bullshit, and you know it, JBB.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 8:05 am
stop being stupid.
“Some Senate Democrats are jumping in the middle of a Republican fray to defend Harriet Miers from conservative criticism that she isn’t qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2005-10-08-dems-defend-meirs_x.htm
ghostofann Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Hmm…that’s one source with a quote taken largely out of context. Nice try, JBB.
Why don’t YOU quit assuming the rest of us are as stupid as you are?
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
because no one can be as stupid as you are.
Willie Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
What malarkey.
Bevo's Brain says:
Boyd’s resume is thicker than Perry appointee (and former Perry staffer) Don Willett; in fact, Willett probably has the thinnest intellect of any sitting Judge on the court – although John Devine may bump him from that position come January.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Burka, anyone got a photo of the new TX SC Justice ?
Reply »
Dawd says:
BevoB–”thinnest intellect,” really? The Duke and Baylor admissions departments would be surprised to hear that sentiment. So would the late U.S. Fifth Circuit Judge Jerre Williams, for whom J. Willett clerked.
Have you actually read any of J. Willett’s opinions over the nearly 7 years he’s been on the Court? Apart from being published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Stanford Law & Policy Review, and the Texas Review of Law & Politics (none of which are known for publishing subpar scholarship), he has grown into consistently being one of the best writers on the Court.
I mean, who else can not only deftly weave in a cite to Star Trek in an opinion (not to mention Seinfeld and Dickens), but also have the good judgment to cite from “Star Trek II” and not one of the lesser installments?
On balance, it appears J. Willett’s intellect is a tad more robust than the analytical prowess of some of his critics.
Reply »
Huh? says:
After years of a court beginning to represent the diversity of the state, we have returned to six white guys on the court.
Why wouldn’t Perry take this as an opportunity to appoint a woman (taking the court from two to three)? There are plenty of conservative women jurists in this state to chose from.
To Paul’s point: Is this Boyd the single best and most qualified legal mind available to serve on the court? I’d say no.
He’s probably an honorable man, but he is not the high cotton jurist the state’s highest court deserves.
Paul, I don’t think this is as much pure cronyism as it is Perry failing to distinguished this appointment an executive branch appointment. He just shuffled the deck chairs. He has a history of not really “getting” the legal system and thinking of it as a rewards system rather that a critical third branch of government.
Silver lining: Thank God he didn’t appoint Rick Green to the court.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Huh, Perry appointed a Latina to the TX Court of Criminal Appeals.
He also appointed Jefferson to the TX SC (he’s now the Chief Justice-the first African American to hold the position) and also appointed Eva Guzman, as the first Latina to the state’s highest court.
Perry also appointed former Railroad Commish Michael Williams as Education Commissioner.
Reply »
Huh? Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
That is all true. And when presented with an opportunity to impact the court again, he went with neither diversity nor a notable legal scholar or jurist. It is a missed opportunity.
I’m just saying, it is a missed opportunity for a guy who’s party just got the bejeebers beaten out of them bc of the “war on women.” If he went with the single best available, and it was a white male, that’s cool. But if excellence isn’t his criteria, why not recognize women jurists who are and add to that record?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Bob Pemberton or David Puryear would have been better picks.
Reply »
Orale! Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 5:47 am
Justice Pemberton would’ve been a great choice! I have served with Bob and know his work ethic first hand. Let’s remember he too was a Perry appointee to the 3rd Court of Appeals but have been elected and reelected.
Reply »
Jim Sirbasku says:
The Texas Supreme Court is so widely mocked in the actual legal community it simply doesn’t matter which apparatchik Perry appoints. Perry knows this, so he appointed his buddy. Baaahhhhb Pemberton would have made no difference.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Throughout the state, SCOTX is widely mocked as a collection of puppets, proxies, and rubes who all lack fundamental understanding of the law and are all pawns of the insurance industry.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 7:03 am
Why would you limit this statement regarding Perry appointments to our Supreme Court? With few exceptions, it holds true for every seat, board and commission filled during his tenure. Under qualified people who get their marching orders from the boss.
Appointments to TxDot, Insurance and our PUC readily come to mind. In all these areas the Big’s have prospered; the commonbreads have gotten the shaft.
Reply »
Willie Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Throughout the nation. Not only do we have the distinction and reputation of sending complete morons to Washington, but of having the most ideological and backwrds state government in history.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Thanks for expanding on what is my point of view also, John.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Most democrats can only view life through a lawyer’s viewpoint, as most dem legislators are lawyers and they tell the average dem how to think. As most democrat trial lawyers say, it’s not about guilt or innocence it’s about winning.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Is this just the mantra of Dem attorneys, or really all of them?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
aren’t the majority of attornies democrats.
Reply »
ruby Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Conservatives can’t get inot law school from welding class or A&M.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
November 29th, 2012 at 7:23 am
But they can get into the SEC and the top 10 rankings in the BCS poll. Just shows you what winners can do.
BaylorHeel says:
Burka, the problem is that you’re elevating court of appeals experience above all other types of legal experience. I don’t want a high court composed of all former court of appeals judges. It’s important to have a mix of perspectives (i.e., executive branch, private practice, trial judge, etc.) when the justices are deliberating on the practical effect their decision will have.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
Burka, I’m hearing reports that some lawmakers are going to make some changes to how TX Supreme Court Justices and Judges of the TX Criminal Court of Appeals are elected (both courts are elected statewide in partisan elections) by having merit selection and retention.
Do you know this will go anywhere in the upcoming session ?
Reply »
anioy Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
H.B. 134 by Raymond
Reply »
Dan C Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
State Senator Duncan from Lubbock has been introducing a bill to end partisan election of judges every session for quite some time now. He talked about it at a Dallas Bar Assn. lunch a few years ago after the Democrats took over Dallas County. The bill never goes anywhere. I think Duncan is a “good govt” type doing this because he thinks it would be better. But look at the political landscape. All members of SCt and Ct of Criminal Appeals are Republicans. Republicans control both houses of the Legislature. Perry is Governor. They won’t support it. They are winning state wide in the present system. Republicans in West and East Texas are happy the way it is. Dems in Dallas, Austin, the Valley, etc. won’t support it because we don’t want Perry appointing even more judges (shudder). It is going nowhere.
Reply »
anioy says:
Relating to the criminal jurisdiction of the supreme court and the abolishment of the court of criminal appeals.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Raymund’s legislation will NOT pass and will fail because some want to see judges on both of the state’s highest courts (SC and Court of Crim. Appeals) elected statewide in partisan elections.
Back in the old days, Dems had no problem and majority of GOPers don’t have a problem with it either.
But overall, this legislation will FAIL.
Reply »
lobster Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
What is richard raymond doing introducing this kind of legislation? the guy never could pass the bar exam so he just gave up. not exactly the sharpest legal mind. this is the guy that took a giant dump on speaker straus after he was appointed to be vice chair of appropriations. they he got benched and now he and trey fischer are quietly trying to get a “soon to be named” republican elected speaker.
Reply »
Patriotone says:
Nothing will change with regard to how we pick judges unless and until there is an enormous and well timed scandal. Nothing on the horizon now. The left and right support the present system by and large. Jeff Boyd is about as qualified as anyone, the real question is whether its a good system where a Governor for life picks the majority of the judiciary with essentially no adult supervision. He wil fit into the cookie cutter of the vast majority of the judges previously chosen. Now, watch all the judges on the Appellate benches who will be leaving soon because they believed they were on the “short list”.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
November 28th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Patriotone, the state’s highest judiciary branches (SC and Court of Crim. Appeals) will continue having judges elected in statewide partisan elections for a LONG time.
Reply »
Really Burka? says:
His resume is much closer to that of a federal appellate judge. And they are brilliant people, even the ones whom we do agree with their opinions. His resume is top notch for any lawyer. We get our judges from the best lawyers. In Texas we have, for the most, an appointment and then re-call election system for our highest judges. If the legal community does not believe he is doing well they will work to find him an opponent.
You would be right if you showed some evidence that his credentials don’t match other high judges. However, that is not the case. You can not like Gov. Perry and still be ok with his choice for judge. Just because he put his chief of staff on the court does not make it cronyism. He is competent and experienced. Great pick.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Experienced at what? Not judicial experience.
Reply »
donuthin says:
No, it was cronyism irrespective of his qualifications. Perry picks those who owe him and who he can expect absolute loyalty and payback.
Reply »