August 21, 2009

J.B. Van Hollen attacks a statute

For whatever authority his attack is worth:
The legislature has not granted the attorney general the statutory authority to attack the constitutionality of [a Wisconsin statute]. Further, no other constitutional or common law doctrine gives the attorney general such authority. State v. City of Oak Creek, 2000 WI 9, ¶ 1.
That authority being precisely none at all, except Van Hollen is running for reelection, and the gays are always a useful political tool.

Congratulations in advance to the high priced outside help who get the case* thanks to J.B. Van Hollen's principled objections.

* Why is Julaine Appling's attorney Richard M. Esenberg's address listed as Marquette Law School? That's a law office now? But it was nice to bring in those dudes from Scottsdale, AZ to help out. Wisconsin lawyers are all operating at full capacity, I suppose.


Anonymous said...

Generally, I have the opinion opposite of yours. However, your point about Prof. Esenberg is exactly right. He should be using a PO Box for any work outside MULS. I believe Dean Kearney followed that practice when he participated in representation while teaching at MULS. Maybe Prof. Esenberg hasn't even thought of this?

Anonymous said...

Why is it that when the Public Defender needs to hire attorneys to comply with the constitutional obligation the state has to provide counsel to indigent defendants the attorney cannot be paid more than $40 per hour, but when Van Hollen refuses to do his legal duty the State can hire Lester Pines to defend the legislative judgment in passing the statute at an hourly rate 5 times that high?