"[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." — Wis. S. Ct. Justice Patience RoggensackJust a little something to bear in mind "going forward," as they say.
August 22, 2011
Says the most conservative judge in Wisconsin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"It would allow (officials) to say you are who you say you are," Esenberg said.
Right-because without the State saying I am who I say I am, I am not, no, I would not be who I am.
I hope his law firm, which is public interest, has a lower hourly rate than The For Profit Troupis Law Firm, because if he also said as written by the reporter that "he doubted the challenge would meet the high burden needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was unconstitutional" I'm not sure what direction he's going with this, I thought maybe strict scrutiny, but maybe his clients are dealing out a matter in criminal court.
Reasonable doubt is the applicable standard, but in the case of constitutional challenges, it's a legal standard, a matter of law for judges to decide, whereas the reasonable doubt in criminal cases is an evidentiary standard derived from the relative weight and convincing nature of the facts and decided by juries. But yeah as usual it is amusing to see conservatives cheering for more intrusive government powers and in this instance applauding the solution to a problem that has never been shown to exist.
"Nevertheless, when a legislative act unreasonably invades rights guaranteed by the state constitution, a court has not only the power but also the duty to strike down the act." - Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2005 WI 125.
Post a Comment