So Ralph Ovadal is subsidizing Madison public transit. Personally, I'd take being called a fool by Ralph Ovadal as a compliment. But how old Joseph Ratzinger takes to being called the Antichrist, I cannot say.
It's nice to see Ralph back in the news. He's always good for a laugh.
March 11, 2009
Best ringtone yet
Theme from Hockey Night in Canada
I need that (although it gets a little out of control near the end, what with the crazy tom tom action). Also, I just thought of an ingeniously ambiguous title for a blog, which I now wish I'd come up with before this one:
Reduced to writing
Consider it my personal gift to the public domain.
I need that (although it gets a little out of control near the end, what with the crazy tom tom action). Also, I just thought of an ingeniously ambiguous title for a blog, which I now wish I'd come up with before this one:
Reduced to writing
Consider it my personal gift to the public domain.
Quesosphere contracts, expands
The latest addition to the local blogosphere is courtesy of Andrew Golden, who is finishing up his law degree at Marquette University.
Andrew was featured at the law school faculty blog for a month last year, during which he posted a number of informative, considered, and well written dispatches.
So by all means, check him out:
Furtive Movements
And unfortunately the Thoughtful Conservative, who always seemed like a pretty decent fellow with a sense of humor, has hung it up.
Andrew was featured at the law school faculty blog for a month last year, during which he posted a number of informative, considered, and well written dispatches.
So by all means, check him out:
Furtive Movements
And unfortunately the Thoughtful Conservative, who always seemed like a pretty decent fellow with a sense of humor, has hung it up.
March 10, 2009
What do I care what they think in Madison?
h/t WisOpinion.com.
Anyway, I still haven't banned Terrence Berres yet.
(And he doesn't allow comments at all.)
Chas. Sykes, MPS expert
Updated below
Local medium wave howler/buffoon Charlie Sykes, a self-styled expert in and caustic critic of public education, doesn't even know which institutions are within the Milwaukee Public Schools system.
Linking to some autobot-blog called WalletPop, Sykes asserts that three of the so-called "25 Worst Performing Public Schools in America" are MPS schools, including the third and fourth "worst."
"Grim," ponders the insightful AM radio squawker, grimly.
Except neither of the two has much, if anything, to do with MPS. Indeed, one of them apparently ceased to exist several years ago.
The third school (25th "worst"), Milwaukee Spectrum, is an affiliate, founded by a group of nuns in the 1970s and partnered with MPS a few years later. It's designed for the special needs of a few dozen "at-risk" young women. Yes, let's all pile on them, shall we? Classy.
Outstanding work, Sykes.
eta: The Chief and MPS teacher Jay Bullock follow up. Jay notes the "ratings" were compiled by a real estate concern, therefore Sykes, who resides in the comfortable suburbs of Mequon, needn't worry himself over being molested by either teenage girls or the nuns.
Local medium wave howler/buffoon Charlie Sykes, a self-styled expert in and caustic critic of public education, doesn't even know which institutions are within the Milwaukee Public Schools system.
Linking to some autobot-blog called WalletPop, Sykes asserts that three of the so-called "25 Worst Performing Public Schools in America" are MPS schools, including the third and fourth "worst."
"Grim," ponders the insightful AM radio squawker, grimly.
Except neither of the two has much, if anything, to do with MPS. Indeed, one of them apparently ceased to exist several years ago.
The third school (25th "worst"), Milwaukee Spectrum, is an affiliate, founded by a group of nuns in the 1970s and partnered with MPS a few years later. It's designed for the special needs of a few dozen "at-risk" young women. Yes, let's all pile on them, shall we? Classy.
Outstanding work, Sykes.
eta: The Chief and MPS teacher Jay Bullock follow up. Jay notes the "ratings" were compiled by a real estate concern, therefore Sykes, who resides in the comfortable suburbs of Mequon, needn't worry himself over being molested by either teenage girls or the nuns.
The victimless crime
Broad opposition to U.N. anti-blasphemy proposal — World Nut
One might well imagine that an omni-everything being would be really, really difficult to offend. On the other hand, would being omni-everything include for the infinite capacity to take offense?
Case study: Omni-McAdams.
One might well imagine that an omni-everything being would be really, really difficult to offend. On the other hand, would being omni-everything include for the infinite capacity to take offense?
Case study: Omni-McAdams.
8.62% favor Koschnick: MacGyver
Wisconsin's latest right-wing "think tank" the MacGyver Institute has released the results of some recent polling pertaining to next month's State elections, including the Supreme Court race.
A Republican outfit in Virginia called Public Opinion Strategies (which reduces to the unfortunate acronym 'POS') managed to convince Madison, WI's WKOW-TV to print its press release without comment.
"Nearly half the likely voters have not settled on a candidate," emphasizes the pollster, while failing to point out that nearly half have settled on a candidate: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
The poll, which involved 500 likely voters and a margin of error of 4.38%, was conducted late last month. Forty-one percent had already decided to vote for Abrahamson which, given the poll's margin of error, may well be more than the reported number of undecideds.
Meanwhile, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick's campaign person Seamus Flaherty seems unaware that a Beatles reunion has been physically impossible for at least +/-28 years.
More MacGyver: Jay Bullock's MacGyver updates.
Still more: MacGyver kitteh iz makin a bomb.
A Republican outfit in Virginia called Public Opinion Strategies (which reduces to the unfortunate acronym 'POS') managed to convince Madison, WI's WKOW-TV to print its press release without comment.
"Nearly half the likely voters have not settled on a candidate," emphasizes the pollster, while failing to point out that nearly half have settled on a candidate: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
The poll, which involved 500 likely voters and a margin of error of 4.38%, was conducted late last month. Forty-one percent had already decided to vote for Abrahamson which, given the poll's margin of error, may well be more than the reported number of undecideds.
Meanwhile, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick's campaign person Seamus Flaherty seems unaware that a Beatles reunion has been physically impossible for at least +/-28 years.
More MacGyver: Jay Bullock's MacGyver updates.
Still more: MacGyver kitteh iz makin a bomb.
March 9, 2009
Arlen Specter may be pleased to know
That Joe the Plumber recognizes the constitutional right to privacy and therefore will be easily confirmable to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley (.pdf. 14 pgs.)
Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley (.pdf. 14 pgs.)
He makes a good point
It could be a master race of Glenn Becks:BECK: We'll search for answers with Tim LaHaye.
LAHAYE: In the Last Days the people will be running to and fro on the earth. 24,000 miles an hour in a rocket ship?
BECK: I'm increasingly impressed. Imagine what Hitler could have done with EZ Pass.
Et cetera.
He just couldn't do it
Cory Liebmann with more on Koschnick v. Koschnick.
Personally I think all of it's an inescapable consequence of privately funded judicial elections, but I am sure rapidly losing count of how many which ways Judge Koschnick would like to have it for himself.
A "judicial philosophy" should at a minimum be roughly consistent.
Personally I think all of it's an inescapable consequence of privately funded judicial elections, but I am sure rapidly losing count of how many which ways Judge Koschnick would like to have it for himself.
A "judicial philosophy" should at a minimum be roughly consistent.
Gableman in the news
Well, his lawyer at least.
And, rumor has it, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman was in Milwaukee Saturday pallin' around with Joe the Plumber and a host of other local non-partisan celebrities.
See also: A Gableman in the making — JSOnline.com
And, rumor has it, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman was in Milwaukee Saturday pallin' around with Joe the Plumber and a host of other local non-partisan celebrities.
See also: A Gableman in the making — JSOnline.com
March 8, 2009
Strict constructionist creates exceptions
Welly welly welly well:
As I have been saying for some time, the Hon. Randy R. Koschnick is not exactly delivering the most coherent of political messages.
Earlier: Koschnick is shocked, shocked I tell you
Court records show that in the months after he became a Jefferson County judge in August 1999, Randy Koschnick repeatedly handled criminal and civil cases involving lawyers who had donated to his spring election.Can't say we didn't see that coming.
As I have been saying for some time, the Hon. Randy R. Koschnick is not exactly delivering the most coherent of political messages.
Earlier: Koschnick is shocked, shocked I tell you
Walker accepts stimulus funds for Canada
Say, aren't those buses made in Winnipeg?
• New Flyer Industries, Inc. (NFI-UN.TSX)
Scott Walker reminds me of Sarah Palin.
FUN FACT:
There are more people in Winnipeg than in Alaska.
On teh web: All Things Walker.
• New Flyer Industries, Inc. (NFI-UN.TSX)
Scott Walker reminds me of Sarah Palin.
FUN FACT:
There are more people in Winnipeg than in Alaska.
On teh web: All Things Walker.
Judicial activism for the mugs
An exercise in partisan pandering
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick describes an alleged instance of "judicial activism" for the hapless attendees at yesterday's Joe the Plumber Summit in downtown Milwaukee:
What "they" (the petitioners) are asking is for the Supreme Court of California to determine whether Proposition 8 is an amendment or a revision within the meaning of that State's constitution, as both are addressed or defined separately in that same document.
The ambiguity presents an unsettled question of California law — at least as it applies to the particular circumstances of Proposition 8 — and is therefore a perfectly appropriate inquiry to make of the court.
That question has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." And, naturally, the assembled throng eats this pure nonsense up.
Others needn't have their intelligence similarly insulted.
Nevertheless, for the insistent masochists, herewith be the video.
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick describes an alleged instance of "judicial activism" for the hapless attendees at yesterday's Joe the Plumber Summit in downtown Milwaukee:
I saw the news this morning in California, [where] activism is reaching its peak. They're actually asking the Supreme Court of the State of California to declare their constitution unconstitutional! If that happens, it's over! I mean, then words have no meaning and government loses its structure.Nobody has even suggested any such thing, but this sort of irrational scaremongering is typical of Koschnick's political maneuvering.
What "they" (the petitioners) are asking is for the Supreme Court of California to determine whether Proposition 8 is an amendment or a revision within the meaning of that State's constitution, as both are addressed or defined separately in that same document.
The ambiguity presents an unsettled question of California law — at least as it applies to the particular circumstances of Proposition 8 — and is therefore a perfectly appropriate inquiry to make of the court.
That question has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." And, naturally, the assembled throng eats this pure nonsense up.
Others needn't have their intelligence similarly insulted.
Nevertheless, for the insistent masochists, herewith be the video.
A consortium of one
A person going by the name of "Justice" has started a blog called WICourtWatch in order to ... well, who knows what exactly.
A recent post — there is but one other — consists of reproducing in its entirety (including, amusingly, the copyright warning) a 1993 Milwaukee Journal item attributing to mysterious sources* the claim that Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was deemed "too controversial" by then-President Clinton.
Whatever that's supposed to mean. Too Wisconsin-y?
Even if it were true, it's hardly remarkable or even interesting, as President Clinton was notoriously allergic to engaging in Senate confirmation battles over his nominees to the federal judiciary.
Ho hum.
* The one identified source is the axe-grinding "libertarian" Clint Bolick, who praised a Bush II nominee to the D.C. Circuit for drawing inspiration from the dirty hippie consortium Buffalo Springfield.
A recent post — there is but one other — consists of reproducing in its entirety (including, amusingly, the copyright warning) a 1993 Milwaukee Journal item attributing to mysterious sources* the claim that Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was deemed "too controversial" by then-President Clinton.
Whatever that's supposed to mean. Too Wisconsin-y?
Even if it were true, it's hardly remarkable or even interesting, as President Clinton was notoriously allergic to engaging in Senate confirmation battles over his nominees to the federal judiciary.
Ho hum.
* The one identified source is the axe-grinding "libertarian" Clint Bolick, who praised a Bush II nominee to the D.C. Circuit for drawing inspiration from the dirty hippie consortium Buffalo Springfield.
March 7, 2009
Help WI-ngnuts recall Gov. Doyle
They need 500,000+ signatures in 60 days.This looks like a job for the professionals.
JSOnline.com "story" (posted appropriately at 4:20 p.m.).
Earlier related: Great moments in tort reform.
McAdams paranoia update
Prof. John McAdams, who allegedly instructs his students in the discipline of political "science" at Marquette University, has gone 'round the twist over some Christian group which was apparently temporarily denied something or other by some school for not adequately conforming to that school's policies.Knees jerking uncontrollably, Prof. McAdams lashes out at a beloved boogeyman, "Anti-Christian Bigotry!!!1" and continues by hooting, "There HAS TO BE an active animus against Christians here."
Yes, there simply has to be! What else could possibly explain it?!
One would indeed be hard pressed to discover a more impressive demonstration of a phenomenon understood in the academic trades as confirmation bias.
Not only that, but this clearly discernible "active animus" is "extremely common" among college bureaucrats, sez the political "scientist," doubtless relying on the peer-reviewed literature.
Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, Prof. McAdams's link to the relevant Faux News report also contains reference to the following helpful study, which itself has evidently thus far gone unheeded:
Because the more effective ones evacuate bugs also.
More McAdams here.
March 6, 2009
Great moments in tort reform
De facto Republican Party leader1 Joe the Plumber is seeking punitive damages in federal court against three former Ohio government officials for invasion of privacy, alleging he suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and — wait for it — embarrassment. Reportedly, this is not a joke.Yes, you read that right: Joe the Plumber is seeking the assistance of the federal government in having somebody else punished for embarrassing him. Because it's a new era of personal responsibility.
As to the latter allegation, attorneys representing the United States of America, et al. are said to be preparing a class action countersuit.
1 There's more than one.
An ugly performance
Conservative crack-up: David Frum on Mark Levin.
(Mark Steyn is a Canadian too, by the way. Levin likely adores him. And speaking of Canadians, Frum's mother Barbara was a great one who passed away 17 years ago this month, much too young.)
(Mark Steyn is a Canadian too, by the way. Levin likely adores him. And speaking of Canadians, Frum's mother Barbara was a great one who passed away 17 years ago this month, much too young.)
Koschnick for District Attorney
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick uploads to YouTube:
I don't quite follow the reasoning behind this message. Because if Judge Koschnick is truly committed to putting criminals behind bars, then he should stay put right where he is now, on the circuit court. Those are the judges who put criminals behind bars when they turn convicted defendants over to the county sheriff's department.
If I'm not mistaken, only about a third or so of the cases the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts for review are criminal cases. And of those, only a fraction have anything tangentially to do with anybody being put — or released from — behind bars.
More typically, they involve some technical, procedural question. For example, a hearing in circuit court on a defendant's motion to exclude some evidence or testimony. And even in those cases, the Supreme Court may decide only that some aspect of the hearing violated somebody's constitutional rights. (I come from a country that doesn't have a constitution but I've heard those are important.)
Then, all they get is another hearing. Which they may lose again.
Alternatively, could it be that Judge Koschnick is playing on a public misunderstanding of the role of the appellate courts? Even Jon Stewart, who is otherwise a pretty well informed character, made reference to the U.S. Supreme Court presiding over "trials" during his interview the other night with retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Hell, if Jon Stewart believes the United States Supreme Court is in the business of conducting trials then maybe some of the 19% of eligible voters who turned out for last spring's contest think so too.
Pandering to those misconceptions is perhaps an effective political strategery, but it doesn't say anything positive about the candidate's respect for the voters. Better that candidate should honestly educate those voters on the role of the office he seeks, as he should be in the best position to understand and explain that office, yes?
"Most qualified," and all that. That's the underlying claim here.
And a larger question attendant to that one obtains from the fact that the judicial offices are not political offices to begin with, which is why the judiciary separates itself from the legislature and the executive, which are the political branches of government.
A party can't even set foot in court unless she can convince that court that her question is something other than a political question.
Ironically, while you can't get into the court you can get onto the court by doing nothing but playing politics. Food for thought!
Or maybe by "behind bars" what's meant is that some disconsolate insurance company lawyer was forced to knock back a tumbler of The Macallan* because — Lord forbid — the great State of Wisconsin was once likened to Alabama by the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
(Seriously, that is actually one of Judge Koschnick's oft-repeated campaign messages. Which is odd, because I thought conservatives generally find the so-called mainstream media to be lacking in credibility. Except when it suits their political purposes, I guess.)
* Speaking of which, don't miss tonight's Joe the Unhappy Plumber's Happy 2-1/2 Hours. Dissenters are advised to wear a hockey helmet.
Endorsed by the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police, Judge Koschnick is committed to keeping our families safe, by putting criminals behind bars. . . . Judge Randy Koschnick for Supreme Court.I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ever once put anybody behind bars, criminal or otherwise.
I don't quite follow the reasoning behind this message. Because if Judge Koschnick is truly committed to putting criminals behind bars, then he should stay put right where he is now, on the circuit court. Those are the judges who put criminals behind bars when they turn convicted defendants over to the county sheriff's department.
If I'm not mistaken, only about a third or so of the cases the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts for review are criminal cases. And of those, only a fraction have anything tangentially to do with anybody being put — or released from — behind bars.
More typically, they involve some technical, procedural question. For example, a hearing in circuit court on a defendant's motion to exclude some evidence or testimony. And even in those cases, the Supreme Court may decide only that some aspect of the hearing violated somebody's constitutional rights. (I come from a country that doesn't have a constitution but I've heard those are important.)
Then, all they get is another hearing. Which they may lose again.
Alternatively, could it be that Judge Koschnick is playing on a public misunderstanding of the role of the appellate courts? Even Jon Stewart, who is otherwise a pretty well informed character, made reference to the U.S. Supreme Court presiding over "trials" during his interview the other night with retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Hell, if Jon Stewart believes the United States Supreme Court is in the business of conducting trials then maybe some of the 19% of eligible voters who turned out for last spring's contest think so too.
Pandering to those misconceptions is perhaps an effective political strategery, but it doesn't say anything positive about the candidate's respect for the voters. Better that candidate should honestly educate those voters on the role of the office he seeks, as he should be in the best position to understand and explain that office, yes?
"Most qualified," and all that. That's the underlying claim here.
And a larger question attendant to that one obtains from the fact that the judicial offices are not political offices to begin with, which is why the judiciary separates itself from the legislature and the executive, which are the political branches of government.
A party can't even set foot in court unless she can convince that court that her question is something other than a political question.
Ironically, while you can't get into the court you can get onto the court by doing nothing but playing politics. Food for thought!
Or maybe by "behind bars" what's meant is that some disconsolate insurance company lawyer was forced to knock back a tumbler of The Macallan* because — Lord forbid — the great State of Wisconsin was once likened to Alabama by the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
(Seriously, that is actually one of Judge Koschnick's oft-repeated campaign messages. Which is odd, because I thought conservatives generally find the so-called mainstream media to be lacking in credibility. Except when it suits their political purposes, I guess.)
* Speaking of which, don't miss tonight's Joe the Unhappy Plumber's Happy 2-1/2 Hours. Dissenters are advised to wear a hockey helmet.
March 5, 2009
Koschnick "soft on facts"
There's little doubt about that.
So why is Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick trying to mount a cynical campaign against Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson?And that is asked and answered, but here's more anyway.
Yet more incoherence from Koschnick
Incoherence would be the charitable reading. Less sympathetic observers might call it a bald lie. Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick's political campaign website proudly proclaims:
While Chief Justice Abrahamson dissented in a pair of 1995 cases dealing with Chapter 980, State v. Post and State v. Carpenter, the court revisited the statute in 2002 after the legislature passed a set of modifications to it in 1999.
Pursuant to that revisitation, a justice (not Abrahamson) wrote:
As noted previously, former Justice Bablitch was more than frequently in complete dispositional accord with Chief Justice Abrahamson during their concurrent tenure on the Supreme Court.
And of course Judge Koschnick's own alleged justification for that outlandish claim is the fact that the Chief Justice found several constitutional infirmities with Chapter 980.
So here we have Judge Koschnick relying on the opinion of former Justice William Bablitch, who by Koschnick's own measure is every bit as much "well out of the mainstream," in support of the proposition that the Chief Justice is, er, "well out of the mainstream."
Incoherence, obviously, is a less grievous sin than misrepresenting the record of one's political opponent, particularly during a judicial election, as we learned recently courtesy of Michael Gableman.
This writer has already engaged Judge Koschnick's apparently tenuous grasp of the law here and here. For example, Koschnick has claimed — in a fundraising letter, no less — that Wisconsin is the only State in the country to hold as its Supreme Court did in State v. Knapp.
That's also completely false.
Perhaps Randy Koschnick can be forgiven for retaining an inept campaign manager with miserable legal research skills or a webmaster utterly lacking in any sense of comic irony.
Except Judge Koschnick's claims that the Chief Justice is "well out of the mainstream" are the centerpiece of his political campaign. Besides, if that really was true, he shouldn't have to lie about it.
Meanwhile, Koschnick has the gall to accuse the Chief Justice of intellectual dishonesty. And, lest we forget, Judge Koschnick's own so-called "clean campaign pledge" contains an admonition to "substantiate all claims made during the course of the campaign."
Surely Wisconsinites deserve better than this.
[Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson is the only Justice to vote that Wisconsin’s Sexually Violent Person Commitment Statute [a.k.a. Chapter 980] is unconstitutional.This is a false statement contradicted by Wisconsin case law, the rough familiarity with which should be expected from any prospective State Supreme Court candidate. At least, one could hope.
While Chief Justice Abrahamson dissented in a pair of 1995 cases dealing with Chapter 980, State v. Post and State v. Carpenter, the court revisited the statute in 2002 after the legislature passed a set of modifications to it in 1999.
Pursuant to that revisitation, a justice (not Abrahamson) wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that the present Wis. Stat. ch. 980 is constitutional. After [the court's decisions in Post and Carpenter], the legislature passed several key amendments to ch. 980 that fundamentally altered the purpose of the statute from treatment and protection to punishment. This the legislature cannot constitutionally do.Which justice authored that unequivocal preamble? William Bablitch, whose recent remarks also appear at the top of Koschnick's campaign website, in prominent italics next to Koschnick's smiling visage, describing Chief Justice Abrahamson as "well out of the mainstream."
As noted previously, former Justice Bablitch was more than frequently in complete dispositional accord with Chief Justice Abrahamson during their concurrent tenure on the Supreme Court.
And of course Judge Koschnick's own alleged justification for that outlandish claim is the fact that the Chief Justice found several constitutional infirmities with Chapter 980.
So here we have Judge Koschnick relying on the opinion of former Justice William Bablitch, who by Koschnick's own measure is every bit as much "well out of the mainstream," in support of the proposition that the Chief Justice is, er, "well out of the mainstream."
Incoherence, obviously, is a less grievous sin than misrepresenting the record of one's political opponent, particularly during a judicial election, as we learned recently courtesy of Michael Gableman.
This writer has already engaged Judge Koschnick's apparently tenuous grasp of the law here and here. For example, Koschnick has claimed — in a fundraising letter, no less — that Wisconsin is the only State in the country to hold as its Supreme Court did in State v. Knapp.
That's also completely false.
Perhaps Randy Koschnick can be forgiven for retaining an inept campaign manager with miserable legal research skills or a webmaster utterly lacking in any sense of comic irony.
Except Judge Koschnick's claims that the Chief Justice is "well out of the mainstream" are the centerpiece of his political campaign. Besides, if that really was true, he shouldn't have to lie about it.
Meanwhile, Koschnick has the gall to accuse the Chief Justice of intellectual dishonesty. And, lest we forget, Judge Koschnick's own so-called "clean campaign pledge" contains an admonition to "substantiate all claims made during the course of the campaign."
Surely Wisconsinites deserve better than this.
March 4, 2009
Your morning faux-trage
Jay Bullock explicates the latest fabricated tragicomedy that has the nut-right Quesosphere in a panty-wrenching uproar.One of its ringleaders goes so far as to accuse a rival candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction of having "blatantly violated" the law, which most certainly doesn't appear to be the case.
Even the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is complicit in this one.
March 3, 2009
Chas. Sykes conquers space, time
We taped it in front a live audience tonight, and it will air in its entirety....unedited....this morning from 8:30 until noon.Glad I missed it....thrice.
Justice Scalia on campaign contributions
Here is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia responding to Atty. Theodore Olson this morning, during Mr. Olson's argument that a campaign contribution — in this case, a $3m contribution — implies the return of some "gratitude" from the recipient to the donor:
Since Justice Scalia is something of a role model for Judge Randy Koschnick, I wonder what the latter's response to the former's remarks might be, as Judge Koschnick has repeatedly suggested that Mr. Cannon's campaign contribution to Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was somehow improper.
"Shocking" is one of the terms he parades around his website.
That person contributed money to my election because he expected me to be a fair and impartial judge. And I would be faithful to that contributor only by being a fair and impartial judge. That is showing gratitude. I should do what he expected me to do, and I have no reason to think he expected me to lie and distort cases in order to come out his way. What I expected he wanted me to do was to be a good judge, and I'm being faithful to him and I'm — I'm showing my gratitude by — by being a good judge.Huh. Isn't that exactly what William Cannon said?
Since Justice Scalia is something of a role model for Judge Randy Koschnick, I wonder what the latter's response to the former's remarks might be, as Judge Koschnick has repeatedly suggested that Mr. Cannon's campaign contribution to Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was somehow improper.
"Shocking" is one of the terms he parades around his website.
Yoo spin me right round
First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.— former Bush lawyer John Yoo
Instead, he wrote it.
He should be a shoo-in
Louis Butler is in the running for a seat on the federal district court.
A way station en route to the Seventh Circuit, perhaps.
More here from Prof. O'Hear.
A way station en route to the Seventh Circuit, perhaps.
More here from Prof. O'Hear.
Rush/Steele: The Wisconsin Connection
The Brew City Brawler is back from another hiatus.
Earlier: Area GOP man basks in glory
See also: Limbaugh is a "Great Leader" — Bobby Jindal
(So was Kim Il-sung.)
Earlier: Area GOP man basks in glory
See also: Limbaugh is a "Great Leader" — Bobby Jindal
(So was Kim Il-sung.)
Can Koschnick get any less coherent?
Over the weekend, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran a laughably superficial and disingenuous "report" on the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Front section-page, in the hard copies. Above the fold.In the piece, reporter Steven Walters helpfully repeated a pile of Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick's unsubstantiated charges* against Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
In accord with that paper's standard practice, not a single syllable was expended in an attempt to investigate the veracity of Koschnick's allegations. Easier just to uncritically reprise them, evidently, whether they can withstand scrutiny or not.
As Bill Christofferson says, Koschnick might as well just fire his campaign staff and leave it all to Walters and the Journal-Sentinel.
What caught my attention particularly, however, was this quote from former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice William Bablitch:
"I don't like the term soft on crime," Bablitch said. "But (Abrahamson) seems to be well out of the mainstream when it comes to criminal matters involving the criminal rights of defendants."Predictably, Koschnick seized on this utterance with both hands and published it at the top of his campaign website's index page.
But elsewhere, Koschnick alleges that Abrahamson has been "60% pro-criminal" during a selected period of time on the court. He purports to have arrived at this figure by looking at the court's written opinions since 2000, in particular those cases whose docket number contains the suffix "-CR," which denotes a criminal appeal.
Justice Bablitch retired from the court on July 31, 2003, so he shared some concurrent time on the bench with the Chief Justice.
And it wasn't just concurrent time.
As a matter of fact, during the period Judge Koschnick cites to, Shirley Abrahamson had no more reliable ally on decisions in criminal appeals than — you guessed it — Justice William Bablitch.
Not only that, but in a number of cases where Abrahamson and Bablitch were at odds, Abrahamson ruled for the State and Bablitch authored a lone dissent finding for the defendant's interests.
And we all know how Randy Koschnick feels about lone dissents.
So it's rather curious that Bablitch is now deriding the Chief Justice for being "well out of the mainstream." Perhaps he means that the Chief hasn't "sided with criminals" enough, to borrow a phrase from the 2008 campaign of Michael Gableman, which has been replaying itself to a remarkable extent through the efforts of Judge Koschnick.
Koschnick, of course, is impervious to any of this, which isn't curious at all, since his entire campaign is erected on contradictions.
In this latest instance, he's quite happy to criticize Abrahamson's record in criminal appeals on the one hand, while with the other appropriate as an endorsement the oddball statement of a former justice whose own record is practically identical to Abrahamson's.
Koschnick might be able to put this chicanery over on Joe the Plumber, with whom he'll be sharing a stage Saturday morning, but he can't foist it on normal sentient human beings without comment.
Unfortunately, he's managing to get it past the reporters and editors at Milwaukee's only daily newspaper. And that enabling is shameful.
* Koschnick's so-called "clean campaign pledge" contains an admonition against unsubstantiated charges. At his website, Koschnick is running an animated ticker supposedly counting the days since the Chief Justice hasn't signed his "pledge."
One could be forgiven for believing the ticker is counting the days until Koschnick finally gets around to signing the thing himself.
eta: Milwaukee Magazine's Bruce Murphy thinks Bablitch is exacting revenge on the Chief because "she does not suffer fools gladly."
Nice swipe. We'll make an unmentionable blogger out of him yet.
March 2, 2009
Koschnick's favorite judicial activists
Nearly four months into his candidacy for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, voters can still be forgiven for not knowing what the heck Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick is on about, apart from being a garden variety rehearser of vacuous conservative Republican talking points.Yesterday during an appearance with Mike Gousha on WISN-TV's Up Front, Judge Koschnick kept up fronting his standard "I'm a judicial conservative" line as opposed to the incumbent, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who Koschnick continually refers to as a "judicial activist."
While Koschnick takes pains to differentiate between "judicial conservative" and "political conservative" — he insists he's "not running as a political conservative" — within moments he's describing the Chief Justice as at "the opposite end of the spectrum" from him, dividing the United States Supreme Court into "the left" and "the right," and even helpfully naming names.
"Opposite end of the spectrum" ... "the left" ... "the right" ... Apparently Koschnick actually expects people to believe that all of these references supposedly have nothing to do with political or partisan identity but only with the purity of his jurisprudence.
Asked by Mike Gousha to clarify, Koschnick once again compares himself to the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court he admires most, including Antonin Scalia, even though Justice Scalia's own written words utterly contradict Koschnick.
According to Koschnick, the standard by which judges are deemed to reside on either side of the "activist" or "conservative" dichotomy is found in their propensity to strike down acts of the legislature.
He makes this very clear:
Mike Gousha: Tell us about the greatest difference between you and [Abrahamson].Thus, the benchmark Koschnick proffers to depict himself as a "judicial conservative" — but, mind you, not as a "political conservative" — is how often the judiciary overturns the legislature.
Randy Koschnick: It's our judicial philosophies. I am a judicial conservative. I believe that justices on the Supreme Court such as the Wisconsin Supreme Court should apply the constitution the way that it's written and that we should give deference to the legislature when they pass a statute, rather than looking for ways to overturn statutes.
Justice Abrahamson is from the other end of the spectrum and she is an activist justice who frequently votes to overturn statutes passed by our legislature.
Gousha: She says the term activist is meaningless. It basically means you don't agree with her ruling. What do you say to that?
Koschnick: Well, I think that most people understand what I mean when I say activist. You have the same philosophical divide on the United States Supreme Court and on almost every other State Supreme Court around the country.
[On] the United State Supreme Court, for example, you have the strict constructionists like myself, the conservative justices like myself — judicially conservative, not politically conservative ...
Gousha: Do you think the public makes that distinction?
Koschnick: I think so, I think when you explain it to them, when I explain it to them they seem to understand. I'm not running as a political conservative, I'm a judicial conservative which means I believe judges should exercise judicial restraint and not legislate from the bench. Leave legislating to the legislature.
And on the U.S. Supreme Court you have John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, [and] Clarence Thomas as the conservatives, you have Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens as the activists. We have the same breakdown in Wisconsin. Justice Abrahamson is over here with Justice Ginsburg on the left and I'm over here on the right with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia and John Roberts.
He's over here on the right with Thomas and Scalia, while Abrahamson is over there on the left with Ginsburg and Stevens: opposite ends of the spectrum, which has nothing to do with politics.
Except that in 2005 when Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz had a look at several dozen U.S. Supreme Court decisions which implicated Congressional provisions, he discovered Justices Thomas and Scalia leading the judicial activist pack at 66% and 56% respectively, while Justices Ginsburg and Stevens were the least likely to "legislate from the bench," as Koschnick tiresomely puts it.
Obviously there is far more to such evaluations than the brute fact of whether a Supreme Court Justice voted to invalidate an act of Congress, just as there is more to Koschnick's strikingly familiar attempts to portray the Chief Justice as "60% pro-criminal."
Problem is, Prof. Gewirtz's percentages were derived precisely according to Judge Koschnick's own proffered benchmark.
And they contradict him. Again.
"When I explain it to [the public], they seem to understand," says Judge Koschnick. Well of course they understand. They understand the Republican code language. And so do we all.
Despite his contradictory entreaties, Koschnick is campaigning as a standard-issue conservative Republican in an allegedly non-partisan election. There really is nothing more to it than that.
March 1, 2009
Damning with faint damnation
[Rush Limbaugh] is the intellectual force behind the Republican Party. — Rahm Emanuel"The Left needs demons," said Limbaugh, sweating irony.
For some reason, cats don't apply
The Liberty County courthouse windows were open to let in some fresh air as Haynes rose from his chair to start his closing argument. At that very moment, the high school band practicing next door started playing the William Tell Overture. The prosecutor immediately objected, claiming Haynes had orchestrated the whole thing.Richard "Racehorse" Haynes, an ABA Lion of the Law.
New Joe the Plumber in MKE details emerge
Friday, March 6: The Conservative Young Professionals of Milwaukee welcome Joe Werzelbacher [sic], (Joe the Plumber) to Bootleggers Bar, 1023 N. Old World Third St., Milwaukee, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to speak about the current political landscape and his encounter with then presidential candidate Barack Obama. Admission to the event is free.Dissenters will be beaten.
Judge Randy Koschnick pals around with JTP the next morning.
Frédéric Chopin is 199
Scherzo No. 3 in C#m, Op. 39 — Ivo Pogorelich (YouTube)
When Ivo Pogorelich was eliminated in the third round from the 1980 International Chopin Piano Competition in Warsaw (following the performance above), adjudicator Martha Argerich proclaimed him a genius and left the jury in protest.
When Ivo Pogorelich was eliminated in the third round from the 1980 International Chopin Piano Competition in Warsaw (following the performance above), adjudicator Martha Argerich proclaimed him a genius and left the jury in protest.
February 28, 2009
The Oxy-Moron
Today's CPAC keynote speaker:
Well, no, we do not agree with that. And does anybody really have "a conniption fit" at Rush Limbaugh, or do they simply laugh at him, and be amazed that he apparently speaks for so many Americans?
Rhetorical question.
Every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them has the guts to say so. I am willing to say it."We all agree, I'm not an idiot."
Well, no, we do not agree with that. And does anybody really have "a conniption fit" at Rush Limbaugh, or do they simply laugh at him, and be amazed that he apparently speaks for so many Americans?
Rhetorical question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
