Nationally and locally, my attention focuses on the legal. Surprisingly a judge and Supreme Court nominee is a member of The National Council of La Raza. The logo for La Raza appears to have been recently updated on its web site.

La Raza could be interpreted to be a racial advocacy organization. The term La Raza can be translated as either "the race" or "the community." La Raza is not merely an organization that celebrates heritage or defends the symbols thereof, like the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Sons of Confederate Veterans. It is an organization that advocates a racially, some say, culturally based political agenda. Other organizations that self-identify with La Raza and use the name seem to advocate a very radical agenda, such as the return of the American Southwest to Mexico.

Members of the United State's Senate will examine Judge Sotomayor for her many and varied legal opinions, in which she has a high rate of being overturned. While that is important, I hope some senator will have the courage to examine the membership of Sotomayor in La Raza, especially in light of some of her own racially charged comments. At the very least, she should be afforded the opportunity to define her positions in regard to La Raza's rhetoric and stances, since she is a member of that organization.

I would also encourage the Senate to examine the nature, mission and scope of La Raza and allied organizations and whether it or its offshoots advocate illegal actions or participate in illegal activities. I am not saying it does, but as citizens we have a right to know what kind of organizations to which our officials belong, as membership in certain organizations may evidence bias or at the very least define philosophy. After all, I would hope if she were a member of Al-Qaeda (she is not), someone would screw up enough courage to mention it.

The Bible, forgive the paraphrase, says something about getting a log or splinter out of one's own eye before worrying about everyone else. It appears we have still have sharp splinters - including, I would argue, constitutional issues - with a local judge. Even though judge Sylvia Lopez-Beaver is appointed, I think the voters and taxpayers of Ellis County, especially those in Waxahachie, can do something about it.

From my examination of arrest and bail records during the 2009 New Year's extended weekend, I have determined that Waxahachie Judge Sylvia Lopez-Beaver is still setting bond amounts on those arrested but not yet tried to at least a multiple of what other judges are setting in this county, similar in practice to what I discussed in a February 2008 article in the Waxahachie Daily Light and in DallasBlog.

Keep in mind we are talking about people who have not been convicted of anything. If they cannot pay for a bond before trial, they sit in your county jail costing you, dear taxpayer, 45 dollars a day until they go to trial - which can take months - or until they can get a bond reduction hearing - which can sometimes take a week.

When a magistrate sets bond after an arrest, the primary purpose of such a bond is to make sure that a person who is still presumed to be innocent will go to trial. The bond is not set, especially in jailable misdemeanor cases, to keep people incarcerated until they go to trial. In my opinion, a bond of $5000 to $10,000 in a class A or B misdemeanor case is punishment before trial. While the punishment for that level of crime if one is found guilty can involve jail time, the fine amounts for those crimes are only $2000 to $4000. Judge Beaver is regularly setting bonds upon arrest and before trial that are higher than the maximum fine for the same offense for those later found guilty!

I once asked a local officer "what was going on with her bonds." I was told, "Don't ya think she's trying to send a message?" The message is pretty clear to me: The law and its intent have disappeared into a dark void in parts of Waxahachie.

The message from the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure includes this language, "It is not a revenue measure intended to a substitute for fine, but is intended to secure the trial of the alleged offender rather than turn his securities over or those of his bondsman into penalty." It might be interesting if everyone responsible read this passage and acted upon it. If state code doesn't concern you, then how about a word or two from the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required..." I guess that doesn't apply in Waxahachie, either - right, City Council?

I predict that eventually someone with a good lawyer will cost the city a lot of money if this municipal court practice continues, or at the very least, a lot of metroplex media attention we do not need. How many excessive bonds have been imposed since February of 2008? How many more since judge Beaver took the bench?

The fact that people accused and arrested of comparatively minor crimes may be forced to wait in jail because they cannot come up with the one thousand to fifteen hundred dollars that it might take to pay a bondsman to act as security for one of Judge Beaver's mega-bonds ultimately costs you the tax payer money.

As I wrote in February 2008, a bail or a bond setting is never to be used as punishment. To do so involves putting the cart before the horse. When a bond is set, no one has been found guilty. When bonds are set too high, you the taxpayer pay to incarcerate a person who has not been found guilty. What if that happened to you?

The accused will often lose a job, even if they are later found innocent. In addition, under our laws, anyone who cannot make bond can make a pretty good case that they are entitled to a taxpayer-provided attorney for their defense. You, dear taxpayer, get to pay for that, too. As a former magistrate myself, I think this is unnecessary and in perhaps the great majority of cases, a miscarriage of justice. I don't have any problem with a stiff punishment when such punishment is warranted, but bond is never supposed to be used as punishment.