I christen thee.
You remember Jim "Carried ... feet first" Troupis.
Why hasn't anybody asked Justice Pat Roggensack these questions? They seem obvious to me, and I don't even live in Wisconsin any more.
"[W]hen a citizen votes in a judicial election, he or she exercises a right guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."The First Amendment — as you know — originally applied only to Congress. Since then the United States Supreme Court has held, by selective incorporation, that certain elements of the Bill of Rights apply to State governments, but the right to vote has never been incorporated through the First Amendment.
"A supervisory writ is an extraordinary remedy to prevent a court from refusing to perform, or from violating, its plain duty."This seems like a clear directive, and provides the criteria that a court must find are satisfied before granting this "extraordinary remedy."
It's been some time but I'm certain I recall the usual suspects on the political right in Wisconsin castigating that State's Chief Justice, Shirley Abrahamson, for presenting herself as an ally of law enforcement. In the course of winning 69 of 72 counties in 2009, the CJ ran an ad featuring Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney's enthusiastic support. Above is a detail of Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack's Facebook cover photo which, according to the proverb, tells a thousand words. And it's no different than if Roggensack were depicted shaking hands with an insurance company or manufacturing concern CEO. We've all seen the case captions for the controversies that reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court: State v. Brown, State v. Lopez, etc. That large man with the prominent pistol, warmly embracing the smiling judge inside a court of law, represents "State."
[Milwaukee County Sheriff David] Clarke went on: "That's what the government fears. They don't really fear the criminal. They support the criminal after they've been arrested. But what they fear is a law-abiding person ... "Um okay whatever dude. #tinfoil
Below "Judge judicial candidates on the merits," appears this:
Honestly, I’ve never even heard of Gil [Urfer] or Janet [Protasiewicz] before this election, so I can’t say much about them — good or bad.So much for judging them on their merits, then.
Once again, much is being made in the newspapers these days of the altercation which took place in the chambers of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley back in June, 2011.
Judge Charles P. Dykman, who retired in 2010 after 32 years on the appeals bench, said it was "foolishness" to equate complex cases heard by three-judge panels with minor summary disposition cases in which the appeal often lacked merit.Nevertheless, "Mostly True" despite the foolish premise.
Reports Patrick Marley:
Franklyn Gimbel said Thursday he has given other options to the Judicial Commission on how to proceed with the case, but he was told not to pursue any of them for now. . . . Since Gimbel began work on the case, the makeup of the commission has changed so that it is now controlled by Walker appointees.I call that an "appearance of impropriety," a legal concept for which several of the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices show little regard.
Some legal observers said the effort should be directed at the chief of the appeals court, because State law says those courts' chief "shall select the judges" on the judicial panel and does not specify a role for the Supreme Court in establishing the panel.I suspect one of them may have been me.
What Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi enjoined in the spring of 2011 was the publication of Act 10, and not Act 10 itself nor any of its provisions (the "substance" of the law). Act 10 had already been enacted. The legislative process was completed. There was nothing left for the legislature to do. What remained for Act 10 was purely administrative. Bear that in mind during the inevitable storm of right-wing bullshit* should Judge Sumi decide to run against Roggensack.
Reports the local organ:
Scott Walker on Monday appointed president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society Rebbeca [sic] Bradley to fill a spot on the circuit court bench in Milwaukee County.Obviously.
Q. What is your favorite website?Dear God help us, here comes another one.
Here we go:
Troupis was disappointed Judge Sumi is considering a run. "It's obvious she was talked into it because of Act 10," Troupis said. "It should be about competence and qualifications, and clearly the only purpose of her running is to open that pro-union stuff."What a dyck. And I'm sure Sneerin' Rick Esenberg won't be far behind.
In the Wisconsin State Journal:
Some Republican operatives contacted by the State Journal criticized Schmitz, specifically regarding the Gableman incident, but none of them would go on the record.Why not? The Gableman "incident" was so sleazy by any objective measure, who could possibly fear retribution for criticizing it?
Some of the emails appear never to have been released before.
"Oh my God I'm touching her neck."
"If I hated you and wanted to cause you as much grief as possible, if you are not independently wealthy, the best way to get you is to get you to eat up your assets," Prosser said.Or file a complaint because you put your hands around a woman's neck.
Law professor returns to his eager defenses of Mike Gableman:
We might say that "free legal services' is — deliberately or accidentally — not a complete and accurate description of the free arrangement at issue.We knew it was a free arrangement all along. It's pleasant to see Mike Gableman's stoutest cheerleader finally acknowledging that fact.
I am also confident that Justice Gableman understood the nature of the arguments being made for his recusal and, in fact, made clear that he based his decision on "the circumstances of the case ... and the submissions of the parties."'Because he said so,' offers Prof. Rick of Gableman, who doesn't exactly enjoy a reputation for honesty, having been prosecuted by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for lying about another judge's professional record.
'He said he would do what we were looking for.' — Career WISGOPer
[State Rep. Robin Vos] said he heard second hand that someone tried to use a Bed Bath and Beyond mailer as proof of address.
"Is that fraud? I don’t know. It isn’t right and it seems fraudulent. You tell me how that’s not a fraudulent vote."That's a clown question bro.
Annals of the Peppercorn:
11 The other forums may be the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.He had better be.
Justice Gableman’s Order, whether deliberately or accidentally, misconstrues the allegations against him . . .
Although Justice Gableman's Order claims that he "considered the circumstances of this case" and "the submissions of the parties," I conclude that nothing in Justice Gableman’s Order demonstrates that Justice Gableman actually considered the submissions of the District Attorney. Rather, because Justice Gableman's Order either intentionally or inadvertently misstates the grounds of the District Attorney's motion, the Order contains no reasoned basis for the Justice's conclusion that his recusal is "neither warranted nor justified."
The Order inaccurately asserts that the District Attorney seeks recusal because "the Michael Best & Friedrich firm was involved in the cases and had previously represented me." Actually, as I have stated previously, the District Attorney explained in the initial and supplemental filings that he seeks recusal not because Justice Gableman has been personally represented by Michael Best, but rather because Justice Gableman received allegedly free legal services from Michael Best.
Yet, nowhere in Justice Gableman’s Order is there any reference to payment (or absence of payment) for legal services, the fee arrangement with Michael Best, free legal services, a gift of legal services, or valuable consideration for the fee arrangement. None of these words, or any synonyms, appears in the Order.In other words, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's so-called "conservatives" continue to rule by fiat and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman hasn't changed a bit in terms of his "deliberate or accidental" misrepresentations.
PolitiFact grants Willard "Mitt" Rmoney a "Mostly True" for misrepresenting a decision of the Supreme Court because Rmoney is a politician: "PolitiFact focuses on political speech rather than legal speech and judged by that standard Romney is pretty close to accurate."
Lament the hosts of their own Fox "News" teevee show:
[Willard "Mitt" Rmoney] is managing to turn the only possible silver lining in Chief Justice John Roberts's ObamaCare salvage operation—that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty is really a tax—into a second political defeat.First of all, the Supreme Court didn't say that buying insurance was a tax. And it barely said the penalty for not buying insurance was a tax, only that the penalty was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax, and one that was well supported by a host of federal precedent.
Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage.And what the WSJ editorial mandarins refer to as a "salvage operation" was in fact an exercise of the Court's deference to the will of the elected legislature, the exercise of which in other circumstances Republicans who claim to be "judicial conservatives" rejoice over.
That I don't know.
PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 809.71 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS COURT TO TAKE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 809.70Not effing both.
Petitioners ... must therefore go unarmed from their offices to the courtrooms, through public, unsecured areas.The poor sods. They must be frightened out of their respective wits.
Killed by religion:*
Leilani Neumann noticed that her daughter was very tired, but nobody believed she was suffering from a serious illness.Yet they did believe the child, who died two days later, was "under spiritual attack" and medicine would "be taking the glory from God."
[T]he judicial discipline statutes, Wis. Stat. § 757.81 through § 757.99 (2009-10), do not require this court to act at this stage in the proceedings. . . . At this point, the statutes direct the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel.— N. Patrick Crooks, J. (emphasis added)