Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico said he was «honored» to receive the endorsement of the Texas Organizing Project, whose work he described as «irreplaceable» after the organization previously operated a charitable bail fund that helped secure the release of Shane James — later accused of carrying out a six-person killing spree.

The Texas Organizing Project (TOP), a progressive activist organization that endorsed Talarico’s Senate campaign in May, previously operated a charitable bail program that, by September 2021, had distributed more than $1 million to secure the release of more than 675 defendants across Texas.

The program drew intense scrutiny in late 2023 after authorities accused James of killing six people and records revealed that TOP had posted his bail nearly two years earlier while he faced three misdemeanor family-assault charges involving his parents and a sibling.

UNEARTHED INTERVIEW EXPOSES WHAT TALARICO THOUGHT ABOUT ‘TOUGH-ON-CRIME’ TACTICS

James cut off his court-ordered GPS monitor the day after his March 2022 release, prompting a court to issue three warrants for his re-arrest. Despite the outstanding warrants, James remained free for 21 months before authorities say he carried out a series of attacks across San Antonio and Austin that left six people dead, including his parents.

TOP acknowledged after the killings that it had bailed James out in coordination with the Bexar County public defender’s office after his bond was reduced to a combined $300. The organization said James had passed its screening process based on the misdemeanor charges he faced at the time and stressed that bail organizations cannot predict defendants’ future behavior.

«We acknowledge that our assessments cannot anticipate the future actions of individuals,» TOP said following the killings, announcing that it would conduct an internal review of the program.

Talarico nevertheless enthusiastically welcomed TOP’s endorsement earlier this year.

«I am honored to earn this endorsement,» Talarico said when the group announced its backing, praising TOP for spending more than 15 years developing relationships in Black and Latino communities across Texas.

«That infrastructure is irreplaceable,» he said.

PROGRESSIVE TALARICO KNIFES BIDEN’S OPEN BORDER, TRIES MODERATING STANCE ON KEY ISSUES IN TEXAS SENATE RACE

The endorsement announcement said TOP members had met with Talarico before backing him, while the organization’s leadership said the Senate candidate had demonstrated familiarity with its work.

Talarico is challenging Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate races, as Democrats seek to break a decades-long losing streak in statewide Texas elections.

Shane James was not the only defendant released through TOP’s program who subsequently encountered additional legal trouble.

A 2024 KSAT investigation found TOP had bonded defendants out in at least 196 Bexar County cases since jail officials began specifically tracking the organization’s activity in October 2022. Warrants were later issued for defendants’ re-arrest in 58 of those cases, or nearly 30%. While failure to appear in court was the most common reason for those warrants, records showed some defendants also faced new criminal charges after TOP secured their release.

Among them was Benjamin Sanchez Jr., a convicted felon with two prior burglary convictions who TOP bonded out 11 days after his arrest in connection with the burglary of a San Antonio souvenir store. A warrant for Sanchez’s re-arrest was later issued after pretrial violations that included his arrest on new burglary charges, according to KSAT. He ultimately pleaded guilty in the two newer burglary cases and was sentenced to six years in prison.

TOP has defended its bail work as an effort to prevent low-income defendants from remaining incarcerated simply because they cannot afford bond. The organization said in 2021 that its Right2Justice campaign had spent more than $1 million to bail out more than 675 people, with the vast majority of the money distributed in Bexar County.

TALARICO HIT WITH ‘BLATANT CORRUPTION’ ALLEGATION OVER HEFTY SALARY FROM CONSULTING FIRM, CAMPAIGN PUSHES BACK

The organization’s bail advocacy also intersected with Talarico’s legislative record.

TOP opposed HB 20 during the 2021 Texas legislative session, describing efforts to restrict community bail funds as part of a «right-wing assault» on the organizations. Talarico voted against a House version of HB 20 in May 2021, according to the Texas House Journal.

Talarico’s campaign pushed back on the significance of that vote in a statement to Digital, arguing that the version he opposed differed substantially from the legislation ultimately considered later in the process, and pointing to his more recent support for tougher bail restrictions.

«James will always work to keep Texans safe. That’s why he voted to deny bail for violent criminals, supports prosecuting violent felons, and backed Governor Abbott’s bill that was called the ‘strongest bail reform package in Texas history,’» Talarico campaign spokesperson JT Ennis told Digital.

«The only candidate in this race endangering women and children is Ken Paxton, who cut an Epstein-style sweetheart deal that let a pedophile back on our streets after just 29 days in jail,» Ennis added.

The campaign pointed Digital to Talarico’s 2025 vote for part of a bail reform package championed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The package included a constitutional amendment expanding the circumstances under which judges could deny bail to defendants accused of certain serious violent crimes.

The campaign also argued that the 2021 House version of HB 20 that Talarico opposed contained broader provisions unrelated to charitable bail organizations, and noted criticism at the time that the proposal would continue allowing potentially dangerous defendants with sufficient money to secure their own release.

texas, politics, greg abbott, crime world, elections, midterm elections

The Supreme Court launched its new term Monday with a blockbuster oral argument over whether federal or state laws and courts should handle civil lawsuits against energy companies for alleged climate change harms.

Eight justices debated for nearly two hours on a key gateway over environmental liability — who decides and where. It was unclear after the public session how the court might rule.

Absent was Justice Samuel Alito, who recused last week after calls to step aside because he owns stock in oil companies, but not the two at the center of Monday’s appeal.

Local and state governments seek civil damages totaling billions of dollars, arguing it is necessary to help pay for rebuilding after wildfires, rising sea levels, and severe storms worsened by fossil fuel pollution.

SUPREME COURT CAN RESTORE SANITY AND STOP THE LEFT’S RADICAL CLIMATE AGENDA

Colorado’s highest court let the case brought by Boulder County proceed.

SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH CHEVRON, OIL COMPANIES IN LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS

The companies — backed by the Trump administration — counter emissions are a national issue that should be heard in federal court, where similar suits have been tossed out.

The justices will also decide whether they have jurisdiction to hear this dispute, or whether it belongs in state courts.

SUPREME COURT CLIMATE SHOWDOWN JOLTED BY ALITO’S LAST-MINUTE DECISION

Chief Justice John Roberts could be the deciding vote. He asked tough questions of both sides and his vote could produce a 4-4 tie with Alito not participating.

That would mean the specific lawsuit moves ahead in state courts. He said the court in the past has allowed similar claims to be decided outside the federal venue.

WAVE OF OVERLOOKED ‘LEFT-WING’ LAWSUITS COULD COME WITH AN UNEXPECTED PRICE TAG FOR AMERICANS

«There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of the state has broad effects among other states, and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation,» said Roberts. «I guess I’m not quite sure what makes this situation different from all those other ones, where we’ve allowed them to proceed in state court.»

Justice Elena Kagan compared the climate change lawsuits to previous claims against tobacco and opioid companies brought by states on behalf of their citizens.

THE SUPREME COURT IS BACK. THESE FIVE CASES COULD RESHAPE AMERICAN LIFE

«This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,» said Kagan. «Where does this principle come from, that states can’t regulate in the air and water space?»

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to speak for many of his conservative colleagues, on the implications for multi-jurisdictional lawsuits to play out, potentially for decades.

» It is going to bankrupt – if there are enough of these [lawsuits] — bankrupt these various defendants and certainly other defendants out there. Anyone is a potential defendant for a suit like this. Any manufacturer, any business,» suggested Kavanaugh.

«We don’t have to reinvent the wheel because we’ve said this multiple times,» he added, «and Congress, presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and doing the Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this Court’s precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise.»

The current litigation is part of dozens of lawsuits brought by states and municipalities across the country.

Boulder County, located north-west of Denver, sued in 2018.

Among the defendants is Suncor, a Canadian-based energy giant that operates the only major oil refinery in Colorado. ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the U.S., is also a defendant.

Local officials claim the energy firms have misled the public about their role in climate change, and say financial penalties are necessary to mitigate ongoing harms in their communities, including recent forest fires and worsening air pollution.

Some states also accuse the current administration of rolling back mandated protections in the Clean Air Act and thereby abdicating their regulatory authority.

But the companies and the Trump Justice Department argue climate change should be addressed by the national government in federal court, and that the Clean Air Act limits what individual states and counties can do.

FOLLOW US ON X

They say this global problem is not limited to any one energy sector or country, and cannot be resolved by what they call local «power grabs.»

Some litigators believe the companies could fare better in federal court since they would not have to juggle dozens of ongoing lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions.

«Interstate air pollution is an inherently federal area,» Sarah Harris, a Justice Department lawyer, told the court. «This suit egregiously exceeds constitutional limits on state authority,» Harris told the justices.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE U.S. NEWS

With the possibility of an evenly divided court, the eight justices may not have to reach the merits of the federalism question.

GET BREAKING NEWS ALERTS

The Supreme Court specifically asked both parties to address at argument whether it should even hear the case, at least at this stage. That procedural «exit ramp» could put the larger issues off for another day.

«I understand that you have several other federal issues that you have raised that are still pending in the state court,» Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked the oil companies lawyer Kannon Shanmugam. «So why shouldn’t we wait and hear all of these claims once the state courts are done with their federal considerations?»

The case is Suncor Energy Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County, CO (25-170).

A decision is expected by next spring.

supreme court, us, supreme court oral arguments, climate, politics

Una simulación por computadora descartó que la marca azul en el pecho izquierdo de Betsabé, en el famoso cuadro de Rembrandt, sea producto de un cáncer de mama, aunque el debate médico sobre la obra lleva más de cuatro décadas abierto y otras hipótesis todavía compiten por explicar la anomalía.

En 1983, los cirujanos P. A. Braithwaite y D. Shugg analizaron Betsabé con la carta del rey David —terminada por Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn en 1654 y conservada en el Museo del Louvre de París— y publicaron una hipótesis que cruzó el arte con la medicina: las alteraciones visibles en el pecho izquierdo de la figura femenina podrían ser compatibles con un cáncer de mama. La coloración azulada en la parte inferior del seno y una hinchazón perceptible bajo la axila izquierda fueron los elementos que sustentaron su lectura clínica.

Desde entonces, el cuadro se convirtió en un símbolo recurrente de la enfermedad y fue citado en publicaciones oncológicas de todo el mundo. La hipótesis ganó peso adicional por la identidad probable de la modelo: Hendrickje Stoffels, compañera del pintor, cuya representación corporal el artista habría tomado del natural con la minuciosidad característica del realismo barroco neerlandés.

Las simulaciones de la Universidad de Twente pusieron en duda la teoría del tumor

Investigadores del instituto MIRA de la Universidad de Twente decidieron someter la hipótesis a una prueba computacional. Simularon millones de fotones con distintas longitudes de onda que incidían sobre un pecho con tumor y analizaron cuántos regresaban y qué color percibiría el cerebro humano a partir de esa luz.

El proceso de cálculo demandó 700 horas de analisis mediante computadoras. El resultado fue concluyente: una coloración azul de esas características solo podría producirse si el tumor estuviera ubicado entre uno y tres milímetros bajo la superficie de la piel. En la práctica, los tumores mamarios se desarrollan a una profundidad considerablemente mayor, y a esas profundidades no generan alteración alguna del color superficial. Los investigadores concluyeron que era “muy improbable” que la pigmentación registrada por Rembrandt tuviera su origen en un carcinoma.

Otras enfermedades también fueron propuestas para explicar la anomalía

Antes de que la Universidad de Twente publicara sus simulaciones, otros especialistas ya habían cuestionado el diagnóstico de cáncer por razones clínicas. Hendrickje Stoffels sobrevivió casi diez años después de que se pintara el cuadro, una trayectoria difícil de conciliar con un cáncer avanzado sin ningún tipo de tratamiento eficaz disponible en el siglo XVII.

En 2000, el oncólogo R. G. Bourne propuso como alternativa una mastitis tuberculosa o un absceso asociado a la lactancia. Otros investigadores señalaron una mastitis vinculada al embarazo. Y en 2020, el especialista vascular Paolo Zamboni planteó en su estudio la enfermedad de Mondor, una tromboflebitis superficial que afecta los vasos linfáticos y venosos de la mama y que sí podría generar una coloración visible en la superficie de la piel.

Rubens también plasmó signos similares en tres cuadros del Prado

El caso de Betsabé no es el único en la pintura barroca en el que los médicos han identificado posibles indicios de patología mamaria. Un artículo publicado en 2001 en Medicina Clínica por los investigadores Juan J. Grau, Miguel Prats y Matías Díaz-Padrón —este último del Museo del Prado de Madrid— analizó tres obras de Peter Paul Rubens conservadas en ese museo: Las tres Gracias, Orfeo y Eurídice y Diana y sus ninfas perseguidas por sátiros.

En Las tres Gracias, pintada hacia 1636, los autores describieron en la figura de la derecha una tumoración en el cuadrante superior externo del pecho izquierdo, con extensión hacia el hueco axilar, retracción del pezón y signos inflamatorios, elementos que consideraron compatibles con un cáncer localmente avanzado, estadio T4b o IIIb según la clasificación actual. Los investigadores destacaron que esa zona del cuadro, pintada sobre tabla, se conservaba en perfecto estado y que los restauradores no habían introducido cambios en el aspecto de la axila de la modelo.

El realismo barroco hace difícil separar el arte del testimonio

La polémica médica alrededor de estas obras está alimentada, en parte, por las propias convenciones estéticas del Barroco. Tanto Rubens como Rembrandt practicaban el realismo pictórico, una tradición en la que el artista buscaba reproducir con fidelidad lo que tenía ante sus ojos. Sus modelos eran personas reales, y sus cuerpos —con sus particularidades y asimetrías— quedaban registrados con una precisión que, siglos después, permite a los médicos especular sobre diagnósticos retroactivos.

Que Hendrickje Stoffels fuera realmente la modelo de Betsabé tampoco está confirmado con certeza absoluta, lo que introduce una variable adicional de incertidumbre. Lo que sí permanece es el debate: cuatro décadas después de que dos cirujanos australianos fijaran su mirada clínica sobre un lienzo del siglo XVII, la ciencia sigue sin cerrar el expediente.

auction,vertical