April 22, 2011

Hamline law professor lectures Kloppenburg

In making this wild and baseless claim:
An expert in legal politics says AAG JoAnne Kloppenburg may have launched a recount of votes from the April 5 State Supreme Court race to ultimately sway the outcome of a legal challenge to Gov. Scott Walker's union reform efforts. David A. Schultz, a law professor at Hamline University in Minnesota, said Kloppenburg's recount in her contest against Justice David Prosser could be an attempt to stall matters until crucial issues come before the court. The next justice is scheduled to be sworn in August 1, but a protracted legal dispute could delay the winner from taking office.
Naturally the wing-nut elements, led as usual by Charlie Sykes, are citing to this thoroughly unsupported suggestion approvingly.

Because ridiculous conspiracy theories are their stock in trade and their foolishness knows no physical or psychological boundaries.

Only one very large problem: In 2001 Justice Prosser was elected to a 10-year term, which doesn't expire until July 31, 2011. In other words, Justice Prosser already "took office" ten years ago. Apparently the MN "expert in legal politics" is not aware Justice Prosser is an incumbent, a sitting member of the court that has been working and hearing oral arguments throughout the month of April. There is one petition before the court related to Gov. Scott Walker's budget bill shenanigans, filed on April 7, asking the court to invalidate the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Maryann Sumi.*

There is no law or rule that I'm aware of preventing the court from accepting the petition this afternoon, together with Justice Prosser's participation.** Yet here is a professor of law suggesting that an assistant attorney general is deliberately stalling the process of litigation through the appellate courts. It's a serious charge, made without a scintilla of evidence, and is especially irresponsible issuing from a professor of law. On the other hand, it is Hamline University.

That's Mike Gableman's alma mater.

* There is/was another that was kicked upstairs by the District IV Court of Appeals, but it was filed on behalf of Secretary of State Doug La Follette by the Department of Justice, whose ability to represent the interests of the named plaintiff has been questioned to the point of ineffective assistance of counsel thanks to the DoJ's performance in the aforementioned Dane County circuit court.

** Then-State assemblyman Prosser in 1983 filed an amicus brief in one of the cases that would play a defining role*** in the Supreme Court's review of Judge Sumi's disposition, but the brief is not directly related to the central question of whether the judicial branch may undertake to enforce constitutional and statutory provisions against the internal [sic] operations of the legislative branch.

Now that might be an interesting tidbit for a law professor to point out, but in fact it was this blog that did, nearly a month ago. We've since navigated the microfiche machine to obtain one of about three extant copies of the brief in the entire State of Wisconsin. So now you know just where to come for all yer law perfessin' requirements.

*** It's also manifestly unavailing to the Fitz Van Walker cause, IMO.

4 comments:

John Foust said...

Koschnick's, too. I think we're being invaded by out-state agitators.

illusory tenant said...

That's right.

Pete Sake said...

oh get a grip.

tons of people go to Hamline - Dem Assemblyman Gordon Hintz for one. I'm not naming others because I know them personally and I'm not going there. But they are active Democrats, people who know people you know.
If Gableman has tainted Hamline - Who owns Marquette now? who's taint is on it? Russ Feingold? or which of the conservative folks there? Decide.
Other bloggers need to know so they can mindlessly repeat your brilliant analysis.

illusory tenant said...

Actually, Pete Sake, feel free to find one instance of me mocking Gableman (or Randy Koschnick, for that matter) for the law school he attended at this blog. I'll save you the time: there are none, while others were mocking the connection mercilessly. Here it's mentioned as a joke, because mocking the connection is a fallacy. But this post is not about Hamline, it's about a professor who happens to be an adjunct at Hamline engaging in extravagant speculations, but you don't appear to have anything to say about that.