From the dissent of Appellate Judge Lawrence E. Meyers (and thank you, Peter, for the link):

"After reading the majority's opinion, it seems clear to me that it has decided to employ any means necessary in order to vacate the two felony counts against Governor Rick Perry. The majority opinion has repealed more statutes and made more new law than Governor Perry did in the last session of the legislature when he tried to muscle out the elected Travis County District Attorney. [...] The majority is simply making a special exception for public officials in order to reach its desired outcome in this case." (Emphasis is mine.)

[...]

"I also disagree with the majority's conclusion that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad. The only way the majority can get to this conclusion is by employing the overly broad definition of 'threat' that it does. But this strategy ignores both common sense and the requirement to utilize reasonable narrowing
constructions."

[...]

"While the majority has inaccurately concluded that the prosecution in this case is politically motivated, it, in turn, has not shown any compunction in scripting an opinion that establishes entirely new precedent solely in order to vacate the indictment against the former governor. Obviously it has traded the repercussions of a challenge in the political arena for the embarrassment of manufacturing an opinion that is not based on either law or fact. And, unfortunately, the concurring opinions only go on to further support the fairytale authored by the majority." (Emphasis is mine.)

"The real shame of today's decision is that while ordinary applicants' requests to this Court for writs of habeas corpus are often unfairly rejected or their paths to relief narrowed, the majority has decided, for the second time in the last two years, to give special treatment to a government official. See Delay v. State, 465 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)."

From the dissent of Appellate Judge Cheryl Johnson:

"The opinion of the Court stretches constitution, case law, and statute beyond where I am willing to follow. This case does not involve separation of powers, many of the examples set out are inapposite, and the language used as to appellant differs from all other writ opinions."

[...]

"In this case, it is alleged that a branch of state government, the executive branch, interfered with another branch of government, but the branch that was allegedly interfered with is not a branch of state government; it is a branch of county government. I find nothing in the plain meaning of the Texas Constitution that permits the executive branch of the state to interfere in the affairs of a different sovereign and then claim the protection of the state doctrine of separation of powers, which is intended to keep one branch of state government from interfering with the powers assigned to either of the other two state branches." (Emphasis is mine.)

[...]

"Finally, as Judge Newell has noted, this case has been greatly affected by who it involves. In no other appeal I have read during the seventeen years that I have served on this Court has appellant been called anything other than 'appellant.' The constant references to 'Governor Perry' could well be seen by the public as an inference that appellant's position in life entitles him to special privileges and special treatment by this Court that others might be denied."

As written, the majority opinion appears much less a reflection of Texas law and the legislative intent therein, than it is of the majority's own painfully obvious political motivations. It appears to me to have been drafted with a thinly-veiled intent to achieve a desired outcome of removing former Gov. Perry from harm's way, rather than allowing the due process of law to take its course by letting the special prosecutor present his case in a public courtroom. After all, we can't have Toto pulling back the curtain to expose the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, can we?

And as such, since their decision also conveniently preempts a potential GOP right-wing political backlash against members of this appellate court at the polls, should they have otherwise allowed former Gov. Perry's criminal trial to move forward, the majority's specious opinion serves only to underscore and reaffirm my own firm belief that judges should not be elected by popular vote.

Rick Perry is now out of office and his future prospects in politics don't look very promising, so I suppose I can take solace in that. But if ever there was a textbook case of a public official's abuse of executive authority for his own personal or political benefit, this was it. The evidence strongly suggests that Gov. Perry sought to compromise the operations of the Travis County D.A.'s office, in an effort to impede or obstruct an investigation. It deserved to go to trial.

As I understand it, no one running for president sought (or wanted) his endorsement.

Geez, this guy's obviously a Communist. What's Obama thinking?

With the pushback from UW campuses, Walker's state Senate leaders say that they have been persuaded to let the bill die.

But, of course, they lie.

I moved here from a post-civilization part of the country, and when I'm asked by my friends up North if Southerners are really "as nuts" as they keep reading about I send them copies of stories like this one, so they can decide for themselves:

Like most Red States, Tennessee also has been gripped by the "Guns Everywhere" psychosis. One by one, all the places where guns have, traditionally, been banned fell by the wayside, as expected. Eventually, the list of "no guns allowed" places was reduced to a very few, very sensitive, locations. And, that's when the Absolutists came out in force. Their creed, which they proclaimed louder and louder became, "No gun restrictions should mean exactly that, NO GUN RESTRICTIONS.........anywhere."

Soon, we were left with only places like school playgrounds. Surely, school playgrounds would be left exempt, but, you know how that dispute would end. Of course, the NRA took precedence over 1'st graders.

But, to show that there's at least a scintilla of sanity left in Tennessee, those brave protectors of the Constitution exempted one location from the "no guns allowed" rule.........The Legislative Building, itself.

"What?"

"The promise. It's under lock and key."

"I don't really--"

"That's what you're calling about, right? To make sure I kept it."

"Sir, I'm calling for Ted Cruz."

"Shhh ..."

"What?"

"Oh, right, it's a promise not a secret.  Well, I can secrets too.  You got any of those?"

"Sir, I'm not sure--"

"I'll double lock those.  The secrets.  Promises:  Single locks.  Secrets: Double locks"

Reuters

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton's home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as "top secret" because their wording matched sections of some of the government's most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.....

  The State Department has already acknowledged that the emails contained top secret intelligence, though it says they were not marked that way. It has not previously been clear if the emails contained full classified documents or only some information from them

"It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovary.

"Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase. Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person's memory of talc use many years earlier. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk.

"For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues." (Emphasis is mine.)