In the ongoing battle over the courthouse plaques, there is some progress.The third court of appeals issued a ruling on the plaques on Friday. In the ruling, they determined that the State of Texas had the right to remove the plaques, but insisted that the State reimburse the SCV for their court costs. My take is that the State court wanted to preserve the legal authority of the State, although they acknowledge my means of the reimbursement ruling to acknowledge that the then Governor of Texas and his conspiring Attorney General were out of line on the matter. Bear in mind that the SCV had been threatened in the matter with comments like “How much justice can you afford?” mentality. The court covered its butt, yet gave the SCV a victory.
I am amazed at how the news media out of Austin still manages to mangle the events surrounding the plaques. First, they claim that the NAACP wanted the plaques removed. The only request was in the form of a single letter from Gary Bledsoe to Governor Bush about the plaques. Bledsoe’s letter was filled with uniformed associations of the Confederacy with hate. The then Governor was about to run for national office and wanted the support of the letter writer.
The media also forgets that it was State laws that allowed the construction of the building and stipulated the plaques in the first place. Their removal was under the authority of George Bush after his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales goaded (or advised) him to do it. This is the same Attorney General that had no problem with advising the torture of prisoners. Gee, it seems to me that if his advice was bad back in Texas, then it will not get any better in the Imperial City (aka Mordor on the Potomac).
Off the record, these are the same plaques that the tyrant Bush referred to while taking the Lord’s name in vain, vowing that they would never go up again! Although many are enamored with Bush (”Miss me yet?”), many in Texas were not enamored then and are not enamored now. The removal of the plaques was conducted in the manner of a street thief, which does not show a man of high moral integrity.
The issue was one where an elected official violated the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. In this case, the court avoided dealing with the real issue concerning the wrongness of the action of a Governor violating the law, but instead turned it into an authority issue claiming that the State has the authority to decide matters for the State. (If it sounds confusing, it is because courts intentionally do that to avoid dealing with the real issues and responsibility of those committing such actions).
Liberty for Texas and the South!
J Murrah
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!


