Thank you, thank you very much

One of MMAC's more compelling arguments is that the skimpy language presented to voters in November in no way described what turned out to be the substance of the ordinance which, MMAC claims, guarantees numerous paid days off not only to victims of sexual abuse and stalking, but also to the stalkers themselves.

— Me, 01/08/09

Indeed, that's exactly why Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper invalidated the sick leave ordinance, but rejected nearly every other one of MMAC's "less compelling" arguments.

Judge Cooper's Decision and Order is here (.pdf; 38 pgs.). See especially pages seven through 12, wherein the sexual abuse and stalking provisions figure dispositively.

And hey, I'm on a roll:

The factual circumstances specific to Caperton are so over-the-top outrageous, so blatantly corrupt, they're unlikely to be repeated. And it's even unlikelier that anyone will succeed in applying Caperton to a set of facts any less over-the-top outrageous and corrupt.

— Me, 06/10/09

Caperton, in my view, similarly [to NY Times v. Sullivan] involved an outrageous event in that an elected state court judge failed to recuse himself in a case in which a principal recently had spent $3 million to help newly elect the judge.

Chief Justice Roberts is right that the scope of the constitutional standard in Caperton is difficult to discern up front. But that is because the judge’s conduct was so outrageous in failing to recuse himself that most subsequent cases surely will be less compelling.

Prof. Mike McChrystal (expert in legal ethics), 06/11/09.

(I also picked the Penguins to win the Stanley Cup [and Evgeni Malkin to win the Conn Smythe Trophy, although that was a no-brainer].)

*takes bow, purchases lottery ticket*