Court Tosses Out Indictment of Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry

perry2I have long been critical of the indictment of former Texas Governor Rick Perry. Two years ago, Perry was indicted by a grand jury in Austin on charges of abuse of power. The charges stem from Perry carrying out a threat to veto funding the budget for the Travis County Public Integrity Unit, which handles political corruption investigations. The charges have now been dismissed but I remain concerned that such charges were brought in the first place.

District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had been arrested for drunk driving and was widely criticized for her conduct while in custody. She refused to resign even after been sentenced to jail and Perry carried out his threat. I have been critical of Perry in the past and I believe that his veto was wrongheaded. However, I viewed the indictment as deeply troubling on a separation of powers basis and the result of the extension of criminal provisions with tangential applicability to this type of dispute.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the actions against Perry was unconstitutional in limiting the veto power and that prosecuting Perry over his action violates “the separation of powers provision of the Texas Constitution.” It further found that the action infringed on Perry’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Here is the opinion: Ex Parte Rick Perry

64 thoughts on “Court Tosses Out Indictment of Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry”

  1. I love rick perry…almost a solid patriot. But if he could veto her public corruption funding….he could veto all tx counties public corruption funding. Which he didn’t, just hers….looking into higher public corruption. (Not looking at him still got $). Unlike public corruption in alabama the fbi doesnt do texas save for fed like delay. Certainly not like state officials in alabama. If you saw nothing but coruption you’d be a heavy drinker too.

  2. @DNT Duck

    Ooops! Sorry I mis-addressed you. But, I notice that smarmy, supercilious types tend answer with a comment about the speech, rather than address the substance of the speech. While you are free to analyze comments on a “PC vs. Non PC speech” axis, I prefer the good old method of the “True vs. False” axis.

    But, answers beyond name-calling requires some actual cognitive brain work, and I know some folks is just too lazy and/or dumb to do that. Or, too supercilious.

    That dovetails with my theory that most liberal, supercilious types (God, I love that word!) are simply intellectual posers, who simply adopt the outward trappings of people they presume to be intelligent, and then act the same way, as a substitute for actual thinking. That would explain all the name-calling stuff.


    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. Squeeky

    I am neither Donald Trump nor Don de Drain.

    I’m sure you do think what you said is true. So do KKK wizards and dragons and those who engage in racial stereotyping.

    1. Donald Duck – People who are right think they are right, too. BTW, the largest reported amount of racial stereotyping has been by liberals.

  4. Steve, En Vino Veritas. So, if one is a lying SOS when drunk, that is what they are sober.

  5. Squeeky

    Criticize away on whatever hypocrisy you believe exists but, Por favor, take your racist claptrap and shove it up Donald Trump’s mouth.

  6. @randyjet

    You are right about the GOP being chock full of hypocrites, but my goodness, the Democrats are even worse than them. Which takes some doing.

    For just on BIG GLARING example, look at all the pro-immigration crap from the Democrats who then turn right around b*tch and whinge about the poor black folks who ain’t got jobs. They also whine about the shrinking middle class. Heck, if you bring in 20 million unskilled laborers, what do you think is going to happen??? The labor pool is going up, and wages are going down. And, a lot of poor blacks aren’t going to get hired.

    Plus, most white folks I know would much rather hire a Hispanic person, as opposed to a black person. Hispanics do tend to work hard, and their children actually mean something to them other than various welfare benefits. Ask yourself…suppose you and your wife wish to hire a nanny to watch your kid(s).

    Your choice is Lakeesha, a black gal from the hood with a rear end the size of your couch, a bad hair weave, and an inability to speak in complete sentences. Then, you have Maria, from El Salvador, who is thin, and a little malnourished, and speaks little English. Who you gonna hire??? As for me, it’s Maria in a second. I think it reasonable to say most white folks feel that way, too—and FWIW, I don’t even think of Maria as belonging to a separate “Hispanic” race.

    You see, the Democrats are not just hypocrites, they are MENDACIOUS to boot, They love barefoot, pregnant voters, because they can swap them benefits for votes. Illegal immigrants are a potential two-fer. You get an impoverished American who lost their job, or has to compete in the low wage environment at crap wages, PLUS, and this is a big PLUS, you have a poor immigrant who could legally be allowed to vote in non-national elections, and if there is amnesty, even vote in national elections. And, you have the potential for them to vote illegally, because you know Democrats are all against Voter ID, and questions about citizenship to vote.

    Sooo, if you are an honest commenter, stop overlooking the LOG in the Democrats eyes, while waxing wroth about the specks in the GOP. That stuff sounds so shill-ery, hack-ery partisan-y. Not to mention supercilious.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  7. The tax payer money I said was for her Public Integrity Unit, not for her personally. But her own personal integrity is at question here.

Comments are closed.