In a battle for the heart of Texas conservatism, Supreme Court Justice John Devine is facing a primary challenge from appellate judge Brian Walker. The contest is set to test the influence of culture war issues on the judiciary.
Justice Devine, a stalwart defender of religious freedom and conservative values, has been serving on the bench since the 1990s. His journey began in the 1980s as part of Texas’ conservative Christian anti-abortion movement, during which he was arrested over 30 times for his passionate protests.
Devine’s commitment to his principles has not wavered since his election to the state Supreme Court in 2012. He has consistently stood up for religious freedom and traditional values, even when faced with criticism from those who accuse him of allowing his faith to influence his rulings.
His dissenting opinions on same-sex marriage rights have earned him praise from fellow Republicans. However, Walker argues that Devine’s campaign speeches attacking colleagues and officials undermine judicial impartiality.
Devine responded by saying, “At times I feel like they would sacrifice the Republic for the sake of the process.” He continued, “My concern is that they all bow down to the altar of process rather than to fidelity to the Constitution. And when I say that, it’s not meant to be malice towards my colleagues. I think it’s how they were trained — how they were brainwashed.”
Walker countered by saying, “We have a judge who just continues to violate ethical rules and the code of judicial conduct that’s written by the Texas Supreme Court itself.” He added, “And if the people can’t trust that judges are going to follow even their own rules, then they’ll have very little confidence that the rule of law truly will prevail.”
Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, praised Devine’s principled stance. “He’s very principled and passionate about his role, and about standing firm and exercising that role even if someone has a different opinion or they’re trying to put some political pressure on him,” said Saenz.
However, Sanford Levinson, a legal scholar at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, criticized Devine’s outspokenness. “Judges usually didn’t speak that way. And I don’t think that trash talk is a particularly healthy phenomenon,” he said.
Devine defended his approach by saying, “The fact is we’re elected and part of our job is to run for reelection.” He added, “It doesn’t do you any good if you don’t get reelected.”
Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance For Life also weighed in on the matter. “It was very small and fragmented — nothing compared to what it is now. We were very hopeful. But there hadn’t been much accomplished tangibly at that point,” he said.
Saenz reiterated his support for Devine’s constitutionalist approach. “Voters expect judges to follow the Constitution at the state and the federal level… Judges like Justice Devine understand that this is what the voters expect, that this is what his role is. And he’s very committed to it,” he said.
Leave a Comment