Court Opinion

ID: 9635933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:10:32.383652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:39.088667
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM
CONCURRING OPINION
We write separately, once again, to answer the charge of the concurring justice that this Court has unduly delayed reaching and pronouncing a, decision. The charge is unfair and wrong. We reiterate the concerns we expressed in the Court’s per curiam concurring opinion in Delaney v. University of Houston, 835 S.W.2d 56, 64-65 (Tex.1992):
To assist in realizing our purpose, this institution, like other deliberative bodies, has developed traditions which engender mutual tolerance and respect and enable its members to work together to accomplish their required tasks. These traditions wisely counsel civility and fairness in our opinions_ In leveling accusations against members of the Court to which they cannot ethically respond, the concurring opinion assaults these traditions, violating the spirit of professionalism. ...
Only the Members of this Court and our employees who have access to our deliberations can accurately assess who among us is diligent in his work. The public must hold the Court as a whole responsible for the quality and timeliness of our decisions. Every Justice is and should be concerned about the prompt and orderly disposition of our cases, which is accomplished by working together, not by personal posturing. The concurring opinion harms the entire Court and, we are confident, benefits no one. We therefore disassociate the Court not only from the content, but also from the spirit, of that writing.