HOW DOES THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN OUR COURTS ALLOW JUDICIAL INJUSTICE TO FLOURISH? In a democratic and just society, the judiciary must be transparent and accountable. Unfortunately, lack of transparency in our courts can lead to a variety of injustices. When the courts operate behind a veil of secrecy, it becomes easier for judges and other court personnel to engage in corrupt practices, make arbitrary decisions, and abuse their power. The absence of transparency means that the public is not aware of the reasoning and rationale behind judicial decisions. This lack of transparency can result in the public losing trust in the judicial system and assuming that judges are not acting in the best interests of justice. When judges make decisions in secret without any real accountability, it severely undermines the legitimacy and credibility of the judicial system. Moreover, lack of transparency can give rise to discrimination and bias. In discriminatory systems, those who wield power can manipulate court decisions to serve their own interests and agendas, often at the expense of marginalized and disadvantaged communities. The consequences of judicial injustice can be devastating, as it can lead to wrongful imprisonment, serious financial harm, and even death in certain cases. Lack of transparency in our courts poses a serious threat to justice and democracy. To ensure a fair and just society, measures must be taken to increase transparency and accountability in our courts. By shining a light on the system, the public can hold judges, court officials, and other actors accountable for their actions, and the integrity of justice can be preserved. HOW DOES THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE TEXAS STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT ALLOW JUDICIAL INJUSTICE TO FLOURISH? The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct exists to protect and uphold the integrity of the Texas judicial system. Critics who argue that the lack of transparency within the commission's operations allows for judicial injustice to flourish. The commission is responsible for investigating and disciplining judges who engage in misconduct or violate ethical standards. However, this process is shrouded in secrecy. The commission operates under strict confidentiality rules, which means that investigations are conducted behind closed doors, and the public is not privy to the details of the complaint or the investigation. This lack of transparency is problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, it allows for judges who engage in misconduct to avoid public scrutiny and accountability. If a judge is accused of unethical behavior, the public has a right to know what happened and what is being done to address the situation. When everything is kept secret, however, there is no way of knowing if misconduct has occurred or if the commission is taking appropriate action. Moreover, the lack of transparency can be especially damaging to vulnerable populations. For example, if a judge is found to be biased against a particular race or socioeconomic group, this information should be made public. Without transparency, individuals who come before that judge may not be aware of the bias they are facing, which can result in unjust outcomes. Critics of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct argue that the lack of transparency has allowed for judicial injustices to go unchecked. They point to several high-profile cases where judges were accused of misconduct, but the commission failed to act. Without transparency, it is impossible to know if there was a valid reason for the lack of action or if the commission is simply failing to hold judges accountable. The lack of transparency within the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct is a significant issue that must be addressed. Without public scrutiny and accountability, there is a risk of judges engaging in misconduct and vulnerable populations suffering unjust outcomes. It is critical that the commission implements reforms that promote transparency and ensure that judges are held to the highest ethical standards. #TexasStateCommissionOnJudicialConduct #TexansForJudicialAccountability ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uHXWekoVpA

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PARENTAL RIGHTS AS PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT The Texas Supreme Court facilitated an act that Jeff Younger asserts was crafted with interest collusion between democratic judges in California and Texas. Only one Texas Supreme Court Justice, Justice John Devine, dissented against the horrendously bad majority viewpoint which deprived Jeff Younger of fundamental parental rights. In KP-0241, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, outlined the legal framework surrounding parental rights as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Here is a summary of the main points: 1. Protection of Parental Rights by the Fourteenth Amendment: Paxton’s opinion emphasizes that fundamental parental rights are protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This protection includes the natural right existing between parents and their children, which is of constitutional dimensions. 2. Substantive Component of Due Process: Paxton argued that the Due Process Clause not only guarantees fair process but also includes a substantive component that prevents the government from infringing upon fundamental liberty interests, like parental rights, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. 3. Rights Covered Under Due Process: a. Decision-making regarding Childcare: Parents have the fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. This right was upheld in cases where state statutes were found to unconstitutionally infringe on these rights. b. Directing the Upbringing and Education of Children: Parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. This right includes choosing specific educational programs, including religious instruction or instruction in a foreign language. c. Making Medical Decisions: Parents are protected in their right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, based on the presumption that they know what is best for their child's medical needs. d. Guiding Religious Training: In conjunction with the First Amendment, parents are entitled to guide the religious future and education of their children, as exemplified in cases where compulsory education laws conflicted with religious beliefs. 4. Application of Strict Scrutiny in Reviewing State Statutes: Courts generally apply strict scrutiny when reviewing state statutes that infringe upon fundamental parental rights. This means that any infringement must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. 5. Child Custody Determinations: In cases of child custody, courts apply additional standards. The best interest of the child is always the primary consideration. Factors include the child's desires, emotional and physical needs, the danger to the child, parental abilities, stability of the home, and the existing parent-child relationship. 6. Termination of Parental Rights: Before permanently severing parental rights, the state must provide clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination. This heightened evidentiary standard ensures that parental rights are not revoked without substantial justification. 7. Presumption of Fitness in Parents: Courts presume that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. This presumption means that the state should not infringe on parental rights to make child-rearing decisions unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The document outlines the legal framework affirming the fundamental rights of parents as protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which include decision-making in aspects of childcare, education, medical decisions, and religious upbringing. The courts must apply strict scrutiny in cases where these rights are challenged and always prioritize the best interest of the child in custody disputes, while requiring clear and convincing evidence for the termination of parental rights. The presumption is that fit parents act in the best interest of their children. Texas Supreme Court Justice John Devine, considered the most conservative justice on the court, was the ONLY justice who argued for protecting Jeff Younger’s parental rights. Maybe this is the explanation why he is also the ONLY Texas Supreme Court Justice with a primary challenger in the upcoming Texas primary for the Texas Supreme Court. The link to Texas Attorney's General Ken Paxton's opinion pertaining to parents' fundamental rights is located at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0241. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qydEhR9wQk