Reviewed by:

• Texas Supreme Court Justice Bob Gammage: A Jurisprudence of Rights and Liberties by John C. Domino
• Steven H. Wilson

Early in this study of the jurisprudence of Justice Robert (Bob) Gammage, John C. Domino states his hope that his book "will fill a major gap that exists in [End Page 368] the literature documenting the history of judicial politics in Texas" (p. 10). The author succeeds by keeping his focus squarely on that main topic: judicial politics. This book is not a biography; within a dozen pages in the first chapter, Domino has already placed his subject on the bench, having skipped lightly over Gammage's military service, his occasional college teaching, and even his climb up the rungs of Texas Democratic Party politics. Gammage served in the Texas House, the Texas Senate, and the United States House of Representatives, and he was briefly assistant attorney general of Texas. Domino lingers on Gammage's legislative career just long enough to describe his affiliation with the "Dirty Thirty" (a reform-minded group in the state capitol) and to summarize his role in the quixotic attempts to amend the Texas constitution in the 1970s (p. 2). These political tales are key to understanding Gammage's liberal views after his election to the judiciary.

The second chapter is dedicated to Gammage's decade on the Third Court of Appeals in Austin (1982–1991), where he became a robust defender of individual rights and civil liberties. Gammage found support for his opinions as often in the state constitution as in federal judicial precedent. One notable example came in Kirby v. Edgewood Independent School District (1989), in which Mexican Americans argued that Texas's funding of public schools though local taxes violated the principle of equal protection by discriminating against students living in low-income school districts. A trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Third Court of Appeals reversed the ruling 2–1, arguing in part that access to education was not a fundamental right. In his long dissent, Gammage argued that, although the U.S. Constitution (and the federal judiciary) had not recognized such a right, the Texas constitution explicitly charged the state with providing public education. His views were vindicated the next year by the Texas Supreme Court, which reversed the Third Court and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

The next chapter similarly covers Gammage's ascension to the Texas Supreme Court (1991–1995). Altogether, Gammage wrote more than 250 opinions, making an exhaustive analysis impractical. Instead, Domino offers summaries of milestone opinions that he believes best represent Gammage's "jurisprudence of rights and liberties" (p. 11). Justice Gammage continued to expound progressive views, but soon found himself again in the dissenting minority as the conservative majority on the court increased year by year, election by election. Faced with the prospect of losing his own seat unless he chased after the millions of donor dollars as was becoming the norm in state judicial campaigns, Gammage shocked the state (and gained national attention) by abruptly resigning in 1995. Domino tells us where the rising tide of dollars was coming from and why it flooded court races: conservative Democrats had given way to Gammage's generation of liberal Democrats, whose support for plaintiffs and progressive causes led to a backlash. Texas courts turned from blue to Republican red as lobbyists for business interests (including the medical community) joined with conservatives to spend whatever was necessary to elect judges who shared their views.

The next chapter, "Court Wars: Judicial Politics and Reform," covers Gammage's subsequent leading role in the decade-long effort to reduce the role [End Page 369] of money in judicial campaigns. He and other reformers variously proposed limiting contributions, capping spending, and, more radically, eliminating the popular election of judges. In a concluding chapter, Domino gives a balanced summary of the goals and mixed achievements of these efforts.

审核人：

• 德州最高法院大法官鲍勃·加玛奇（Bob Gammage）：权利与自由法理学，约翰·C·多米诺（John C. Domino）
• 史蒂芬·威尔逊（Steven H.Wilson）

约翰·多米诺（John C. Domino）在对罗伯特（鲍勃）伽玛奇法官的判例进行研究的初期，表示希望他的书“将填补[End Page 368]中存在的主要空白。（在州议会大厦内一个具有改革意识的团体），并总结他在1970年代修改德克萨斯州宪法的异端尝试中的作用（第2页）。这些政治故事是理解凝视后选举后的自由意见的关键。

第二章专门介绍Gammage在奥斯丁第三上诉法院（1982-1991）的十年，在那里他成为个人权利和公民自由的有力捍卫者。加马吉在州宪法中和在联邦司法先例中一样经常得到他的观点的支持。一个著名的例子是Kirby诉Edgewood独立学区（1989年），其中墨西哥裔美国人辩称，德克萨斯州的公立学校经费虽然有地方税收，但通过歧视生活在低收入学区的学生，违反了平等保护的原则。初审法院裁定有利于原告，但第三上诉法院推翻了该裁定2-1，部分理由是接受教育不是一项基本权利。在长期的异议中，伽玛奇辩称，尽管美国宪法（和联邦司法机构）没有承认这一权利，但德克萨斯宪法却明确要求该州提供公众教育。得克萨斯州最高法院在第二年证明了他的观点，该法院推翻了第三法院并做出了对原告有利的裁决。

下一章同样涉及Gammage升任德克萨斯州最高法院（1991–1995）。Gammage总共撰写了250多个意见，因此进行详尽的分析是不切实际的。相反，多米诺提供了一些里程碑式的意见摘要，他认为这些意见最能代表伽马吉奇的“权利和自由法理学”（第11页）。伽玛奇法官继续阐述进步的观点，但很快又在异议的少数派中再次发现自己，因为法院中的保守派逐年增加，逐届选举。面对失去自己的席位的可能性，除非他追逐成千上万的捐助者，因为这已经成为州司法运动的常态，加玛吉在1995年突然辞职，震惊了国家（并引起了全国的关注）。多米诺告诉我们，美元上涨的潮汐来自何处，为何泛滥了法庭竞赛：保守派民主党人让位给了伽玛奇一代的自由民主党人，他们对原告和进步主义事业的支持导致了强烈反对。出于商业利益（包括医学界）的说客，德克萨斯州的法院从蓝色变成了共和党红色，与保守派一起花了一切必要的钱选出分享观点的法官。

下一章“法院战争：司法政治与改革”涵盖了Gammage在十年的努力中所扮演的领导角色，这十年来的努力减少了金钱在司法活动中的作用[End Page 369]。他和其他改革者提出各种不同的建议，限制捐款，限制支出，更根本地，消除普遍推选法官。在最后的一章中，Domino给出了这些努力的目标和取得的成就的平衡总结。