Green VS. Green, Texas Supreme Court March 2016 Texas Primary
This well written, well researched article on the March 1, 2016 Primary race between incumbent Paul Green and challenger Rick Green is a good read and worth your time. The Texas Conservative View will endorse Justice Paul Green and believe it is worth your time to acquaint yourself about the two gentlemen.
By Austin attorney Mark Pulliam, January 1, 2016
At the risk of consigning my thoughts to the "black hole" of the Christmas-through-New Year's holiday vortex, I want to initiate a dialogue on an important topic that can't wait; the Republican primary election is on March 1, barely two months away.
GOP voters will be selecting their nominee for Place 5 on the Texas Supreme Court--incumbent Justice Paul Green vs. conservative speaker and media figure Rick Green. If recent election results are any indication, the Republican nominee will almost certainly win the general election, so the March 1 primary is hugely important.
I have written about this race in National Review Online. See green-vs-green I support the re-election of Paul Green. I realize, however, that many of my fellow activists are reflexively anti-establishment, unfamiliar with Paul Green, and/or only superficially aware of Rick Green's background. Many of my fellow activists appear to support Rick Green. For that reason, in this e-mail I elaborate on my objections to Rick Green and explain in more detail why I believe that HIS NOMINATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A GRAVE DISSERVICE TO THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. My principal reservation is not Rick Green's utter lack of relevant experience (no prior judicial experience and scant private practice legal experience). Nor is it the fact that Paul Green has an excellent record of service during his 11 years on the Texas Supreme Court and that Rick Green's stated reason for challenging him--the so-called "gay divorce" case--is baseless. (See the NRO piece linked above.)
My biggest reservations are Rick's Green's demonstrated lack of judicial temperament and questionable ethics. When he ran for an open seat on the Court in 2010, his opponents (including former Chief Justice Tom Phillips) wrote a letter (attached) detailing his past involvement in dubious activities including the promotion and/or marketing of dietary supplements Metabolife and Focus Factor; advocating the early parole of a convicted Ponzi schemer; and physically assaulting the candidate who defeated him in the state legislature, Patrick Rose. Rick Green lost the runoff in 2010 and then sued the authors of the letter (among others) for libel. This, in itself, shows a certain disrespect for the First Amendment--which is ironic because he holds himself out as a "constitutionalist."
Tellingly, however, Rick Green dropped his lawsuit (technically, he dismissed it with prejudice, meaning that it could not be re-filed) after the defendants filed the attached First Amended Original Answer. No monetary settlement was paid, nor was any apology made. Actions can speak as loudly as words, and Rick Green's dismissal of his lawsuit suggests very strongly that the claims were baseless, and he that didn't want the unflattering contents of the First Amended Original Answer to be widely publicized. (It is a matter of public record.)
I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER IN ITS ENTIRETY. ASK YOURSELF, "DO I WANT THE MAN DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT TO BE REPRESENTING ME ON THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT?"
Place 5 is currently held by a respected, experienced jurist. Replacing Paul Green with Rick Green would, in my opinion, be an embarrassment to the conservative movement make the State of Texas a national laughingstock.
I harbor no ill-will toward Rick Green. He is doing fine work as a radio talk show host, speaker, and youth leader. But serving on the Texas Supreme Court requires certain qualities and experience that, in my opinion, Rick Green utterly lacks. I urge you to read the attached documents, do some research regarding the candidates, and then support the only qualified candidate in the race, incumbent Justice Paul Green. Your vote--and your endorsement--are serious matters. Use them wisely.