March 24, 2010

FedSoc research assistant keeps up the good work

"You heard it here first: Oral argument April 16."
Welcome to six weeks ago.

Where was Master Suhr when William Bablitch was Randy Koschnick's primary cudgel with which to beat Shirley Abrahamson, one wonders.

Based on, of all things, a story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.


Brett said...

That guy doesn't understand that Geske IS the other side of the story. And what does she have to say about the whole Gableman debacle? "We're sinking to new lows." "It's horrible on so many levels" (the second one was paraphrased). Accusing Babligtch of partisianship is one thing, but do Justice Geske's comments sound like partisan hackery?

I hate to see what's happening to Justice Crooks. This is a clever orchestration to boot him off of the heated issue of whether the Court has the ability to disqualify one of its members. In Allen, the Court was split 3-3. Given the present motion against Crooks, and with Gableman obviously not sitting on the panel, that earlier 3-3 even split will become a 3-2 majority opinion. And it will come without the benefit of briefs and without the benefit of oral argument. The public will never know about it because it doesn't involve "setting criminals free" or "expanding tort liability."

You gotta wonder who floated the idea to file the motion against Justice Crooks. Given the handling of Gableman's case, it couldn't have come from that camp, because it's genius.

William Tyroler said...

Mr. Suhr is on to something when he complains that the Journal-Sentinel didn't seek the opinion of an "outside expert." Far be it from me to defend the J-S against a complaint of journalistic malpractice. Had such an opinion indeed been sought, we would have been treated to discussion about the motion's frivolousness. More's the pity the J-S deprived us of that opportunity.

True, even utterly meritless litigation sometimes pays off, but this motion appears to have no practical chance of success. Justice Crooks certainly isn't compelled to recuse himself, and we can only assume he won't. Given State v. Allen, his refusal to do so won't be reviewable by the full court. So the interesting question comes down to just what is hoped to be accomplished by the motion. The J-S coverage fails to provide any enlightenment. Perhaps Mr. Suhr can take a stab at it.

illusory tenant said...

"Had such an opinion indeed been sought, we would have been treated to discussion about the motion's frivolousness."


Anonymous said...

I'll defend justice crooks here, but where he should have recused himself was in the school choice case. he ran for justice when it was known that the court would be taking that case and used as his campaign advisor or manager scott jensen, who at the time was the legislature's leading advocate for school choice. justice bradley recused herself, apparently because she had done work for the teachers' union.