Actually, there are two things I'd like to clarilfy,
First, Judge Roach campaigns for his position, this is not a Federal Judge Position; thus, he is elected within his local district. He is elected by a community that largely identifies as social conservative and runs as a Republican. So, on this point I agree with X.
This is from his website:
"My name is John Roach, Jr. and I am the Presiding Judge of the 296th Judicial District Court. I am running for reelection in the upcoming Republican Party and I would like to ask you for you support and vote...After you learn about my life experience, my military service, my legal education and background, my service to our community and my service within the Republican Party I think you will understand why I can confidently ask you for your vote...Judge Roach has resided in Collin County for 37 years. He has been involved in the Collin County Republican Party since the age of 8. He has voted in every Republican Primary in Collin County since the age of 18. He has been a delegate or alternate to National and State Republican Conventions, served as Co-Chair of the Collin County Lincoln Day Dinner, received the Dixie Clem Award, which recognizes the Outstanding Collin County Young Republican, and is a Founding Member of the Collin County Young Republicans. He is an Associate Member of the Golden Corridor Republican Women's Club and Conner Harrington Republican Women's Club."
Clearly he is campaigning as a Republican.
The second point is in regards to this statement,
"So much for Republicans wanting to keep government out of people's lives."
In defense of what Freaky was saying, despite this judge's political ideology, it doesn't necessarily mean his actions speak for other Republican/Conservative Judges nor the Republican party. When either a democrat or republican make a poor decision, it doesn't necessarily speak on behalf of the entire party. Generalizations should not be made from one judge; seldom would any other Republican or conservative judge agree with the verdict given the illogical legal reasoning employed.
So there is partial truth to what both of you are stating. X and Freaky