Showing posts sorted by relevance for query St. John. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query St. John. Sort by date Show all posts

June 9, 2011

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial "bizarre"

Says it — or they, or she, or he — of this week's Wisconsin Supreme Court marathon oral arguments, characterizing as among Governor Scott Walker's lawyer's various claims and assertions:
... the bizarre argument articulated Monday by Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, who said during a state Supreme Court hearing that courts could not invalidate a statute because lawmakers violated the open meetings law.
While St. John's hour-long ramble was indeed occasionally bizarre to the extent the ethically-challenged judge Mike Gableman had several times interruptingly to leap from the bench — albeit not literally — to come to the attorney's assistance, the argument St. John was attempting to make is that courts could not invalidate a bill until it had become law.

Moreover, St. John is in denial over whether Republican lawmakers violated the Open Meetings Law (which they very clearly did: one of St. John's own colleagues admitted it on the record, leaving the trial court no choice but to enjoin the WISGOP shenanigans). What is bizarre is the Journal-Sentinel editorial board's reliance on the organ's own report of the proceedings, which claims Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi "was allowed" to file a brief in an action brought by (purportedly) Walker's right-hand building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch.

"Normally, judges don't file briefs in cases with the Supreme Court," reports the J-S, which is true as a general matter, I suppose, except in this case, the Dane County Circuit Court, Judge Sumi presiding, was named as a party to the action,* so it would be abnormal if a party to an appellate court case didn't file a brief. But the facts of the matter — which bear repeating once again — are that Judge Sumi was ordered to file the brief, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.51(2) and pursuant to the Supreme Court's order of May 4, 2011. Those are just the plain facts.

And those would be kind of important points.

"Normally, Wisconsin circuit court judges don't flagrantly disobey orders of the Wisconsin Supreme Court," is more like it, and accurate.

* "Respondent," to be exact, which of itself should be self-explanatory.

June 10, 2011

Scott Walker and the separation of WISGOP powers

Advertisement: Please visit the CAPITOL KAOS archives
[Wis. Stat. Sec.] 165.25(1) [The department of justice shall] appear for the state and prosecute or defend all actions and proceedings, civil or criminal, in the court of appeals and the supreme court, in which the state is interested or a party, and attend to and prosecute or defend all civil cases sent or remanded to any circuit court in which the state is a party.

165.25(1m) If requested by the governor or either house of the legislature, appear for and represent the state, any state department, agency, official, employee or agent, whether required to appear as a party or witness in any civil or criminal matter, and prosecute or defend in any court or before any officer, any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the state or the people of this state may be interested.
Here's another interesting and thus far overlooked tidbit from last Monday's marathon session of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, wherein Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John concedes directly to the Chief Justice that the Department of Justice is appearing not on behalf of Secretary of Capitol Building Maintenance Mike Huebsch, but on the explicit direction of the governor, Scott Walker. And what Walker is complaining about is, ironically, a separation of powers violation.

During St. John's oral presentation, the Chief Justice is engaging the lawyer on some procedural posturings. Recall that while the hearings were underway in Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's court in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, Judge Sumi issued a temporary restraining order. A TRO is not a "final judgment" and the difference between a TRO and a final judgment is determinative of how Scott Fitzgerald and the other defendants may attack a judge's disposition, be it final or temporary.

In Wisconsin there exists a right to appeal final judgments, but if the defendant Republican legislators here wish to attack the TRO, they must be granted permission to do so by the court of appeals. Thus did the Department of Justice file a motion for permission to appeal a non-final order (the TRO) on March 21 with the District IV Court of Appeals.

The court of appeals declined to entertain that motion, but rather certified ("passed on," or "kicked upstairs," in the vernacular) the DOJ's petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court announced nothing further with regard to that petition until June 3, when it issued an order consolidating it with the DOJ's petition for a supervisory writ, as in the interim between scheduling oral arguments on whether to entertain the supervisory writ, Judge Sumi did indeed issue a final judgment.

So the Chief Justice is wondering about from whence comes the DOJ's authority to bring the petition for a supervisory writ (a writ is a court order, and in this case the DOJ is seeking an order vacating Judge Sumi's disposition based on the Supreme Court's supervisory authority over the circuit courts). The petition for a supervisory writ was filed in the name of Mike Huebsch, but what the record transcribed below reveals is that the order came directly from Governor Walker himself, something Mr. St. John appears to be distinctly uncomfortable with admitting.

The exchange between the Chief Justice and the deputy AG, related to the foregoing issues of who gets to do what and when begins at 00:43:10 of Wisconsin Eye's video of the oral arguments and the CJ gets to the Walker's Point at 00:45:10. The ellipses are pauses, not edits.
CJA: Under what authority does the State bring this proceeding?

KSJ: The State brings this proceeding under [Wis. Stat. Sec. 165.25(1)(m) — see above].

CJA: 165 ... yes.

KSJ: 165.25, sub. 1m.

CJA: Point 25, one ...

KSJ: 1m.

CJA: What does that say, counsel?

KSJ: That provides, that says that the attorney general and I ... quote the statute [KSJ retrieves Volume 3 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations] ...

CJA: 165 ... 25 ...

KSJ: It needs to be read in conjunction with sub. 1, but 1m provides that if requested by the governor or either house of the legislature ...

CJA: Okay.

KSJ: ... may ...

CJA: Did the governor make any request?

KSJ: Yes.

CJA: Is that on record?

KSJ: It's not part of the record for petition [for a supervisory writ]. The State appears in many actions at the request of the governor or on the legislature and wouldn't file that with the court. We'd be happy to do so if that were required.

CJA: Therefore, and represent the State. Okay, the court will take that under advisement. Is that what you're relying on, 'If requested by the governor, appear for and represent the State'?

KSJ: Mm hmm. In any matter in which the State or the people of this State may be interested. There's been a determination made ...

CJA: Oh wait, what about the sentence, "whether required to appear as a party or witness"? That clause.

KSJ: Mm hmm. In any ...

CJA: Well ...

KSJ: And prosecute or defend ...

CJA: Are you required to appear here as a party? Here?

KSJ: Uh, there's no requirement ...

CJA: Okay. So you're going on to, "and prosecute in any court," right?

KSJ: That's correct.

CJA: "In which the State or the people may be interested."

KSJ: That's correct.

CJA: Okay. This is one of the things that is ... and on page four of your Ozanne you rely on 165.25, but there you say only that the AG decides whether what's the best interest of the State so now you're relying on the governor, is that it?

KSJ: There is authority in this case from the governor, there is also authority in this court's precedent that says that the attorney general may appear before this court with or without the governor's approval to advance an interest of the State.
He goes on. But he's already admitted to the Chief Justice, who is more interested in the express language of the State statutes, that in this case what he's relying on is a request from the governor, Scott Walker.

So you have Republican Scott Walker, the chief executive branch officer, petitioning the Republican-controlled Supreme Court,* the top entity within the judicial branch, to in effect discipline a lower court because it ruled against his Republican pals and allies in the legislative branch. And what Walker is complaining about ultimately is a violation of the doctrine of constitutional separation of powers. That is one not-too-subtle irony.

Deputy AG St. John's pursed "mm hmms" indicate he was none too comfortable with the Chief Justice's line of inquiry. Witnesses at trial who answer "mm hmm" rather than "yes" are often admonished by the court for not speaking up clearly and affirmatively. I wonder why St. John was so reticent at providing this information, that the Department of Justice is acting on the direct order of Governor Scott Walker.

Because the named petitioner clearly has no idea what's going on.

Since Monday a slew of additional documents were filed with the State Supreme Court, but this space doesn't know whether Walker's directive to the DOJ is among them. It may well be quite an edifying read.

* Let's dispense with the "nonpartisan" façade for a moment. Everybody knows how many millions of dollars (and thousands of logically fallacious and unethical teevee ads) Republican-affiliated outfits have produced and spent to ensure and protect the current make-up of the court.

April 23, 2012

What, no bonus for Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman?

"We're broke." — Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, repeatedly

You have got to be effing kidding me:
Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar, who defended Walker's collective bargaining law in an open meetings challenge and has handled the State's defense of Republican redistricting legislation, got a $1,000 bonus and a $1.50-an-hour raise in March, bumping her salary by more than $3,000 to $104,730.

Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, who defended the collective bargaining law in front of the State Supreme Court, got a $2.51-an-hour raise in March that adds up to more than $5,000 per year and brings his pay to $134,307.
Some defense.

Ms. Lazar admitted in a Dane County trial court that the Fitz Van Walker regime both broke the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law and violated the State constitution, which was pretty much dispositive in Judge Maryann Sumi's decision to enjoin Act 10, Scott Walker's "signature" union-busting "achievement"* and Mr. St. John, the lead attorney by the time the case got to the State Supreme Court, would have by rights lost that case but not for the alleged "conservatives" on the court dreaming up a jurisdiction unauthorized by the constitution.

Oh and by the way, contrary to the AP story, St. John & Co. were not "defend[ing] the collective bargaining law," they were defending the Wisconsin Republicans' breaking the law and violating the constitution.

This is what passes for meritoriousness under Scott Walker. Incroyable.

* From the MJS's comically fawning report of Walker's "barnstorming."

June 7, 2011

Shorter Huebsch v. Sumi

If you don't have time to watch yesterday's entire marathon Wisconsin Supreme Court oral arguments, just watch these three lawyers.

Wisconsin Eye Part 2 of 3:

01:07:44 — Robert Jambois, counsel for Rep. Peter Barca
01:33:12 — Lester Pines, counsel for Sen. Mark Miller
02:05:18 — Roger Sage, counsel for Sec. of State Doug La Follette

Mr. Sage's presentation might be said to be optional, as he is addressing the question of whether 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 was published in the constitutional sense, and you already know all about that. In fact many of the issues raised by Messrs. Jambois and Pines would already be familiar to regular readers of this here blog. And while the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that the justices "expressed skepticism" toward the reasoning contained in Judge Sumi's temporary and final rulings, which is true to some extent, you won't hear much skepticism from the bench during either the Jambois or the Pines presentations.

And while the Journal-Sentinel reports* that "the most aggressive questioning came from Justice Michael Gableman," it came during the presentation of Dane County DA Ismail Ozanne (00:01:18) who, with all due respect, is probably less used to addressing the structural constitutional questions at issue in these two consolidated cases.

Last night apparently there were some rumors circulating that the court was preparing to vacate Judge Sumi's ruling, which would have the effect of codifying 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.** If that were to come to pass, I suspect the law might again be enjoined immediately, on the same factual grounds its publication was enjoined in the first place. And the said codification would have the effect of rendering Gableman's objections moot almost in their totality, insofar as those objections were grounded in the beloved 1943 case Goodland v. Zimmerman, which teaches that a court may not interfere with the legislative process until a bill becomes law (that is, in Wisconsin, once its publication is made).

Gableman's apparent objections appear to presume that the trial court, where Judge Sumi presides, is a rule-making authority rather than a circuit court making a narrow decision based only on the facts presented in evidence to that particular court.*** In other words, the concerns expressed by Gableman and appearing in the lead paragraphs of the Journal-Sentinel report are representative of a slippery slope fallacy.

Generally courts do not make rulings grounded in logical fallacies.

But you never know, with this one.

In any event, the guy you have to watch is Justice Patrick Crooks, who raised concerns similar to those of my friend Bill Tyroler, who suggests that the authority conferred on the district attorney by the Open Meetings Law to challenge the constitutionality of the legislative process is itself an unconstitutional delegation of power by the legislature to the executive branch, under which auspices the district attorney operates.

As this space has been observing practically since the outset of this controversy, it seems to me the only way the court can vacate Judge Sumi's very conservative, very restrained reasoning is to find the provisions of the Open Meetings Law upon which Judge Sumi relied to be themselves violative of judge-made — or at least judge-inferred — constitutional law doctrine. Why the Wisconsin Department of Justice is pursuing the objective of restricting public access to the operation of State government is either a mystery or completely typical and expected of the Republican Scott Walker administration and its disciples and allies.

* And once again, it is simply not correct to say that Judge Sumi was "allowed" to file a legal brief further to building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch's petition to the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ directed at Judge Sumi. Judge Sumi was ordered by the Supreme Court to file the brief. And now she is being criticized for not disobeying that order. This is how absurd the Wisconsin Department of Justice, under the direction of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, has become.

** a.k.a. "legislating from the bench."

*** Among the more amusing moments during yesterday's proceedings was when Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson directed Deputy AG St. John to cease and desist from referring to the circuit court as an "inferior court." The circuit court's function is different; it is not "inferior." And indeed the expression "inferior court" is plucked from federal law — which has no bearing on the cases at bar — where it appears in the federal Constitution. In fact, as this space has pointed out previously, despite the U.S. Constitution's reference to "inferior courts" which may be created from time to time by the Congress, the Article III judicial power inheres equally among the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal, and the United States District Courts (the parallel entities to the State circuit courts). Shirley is the best.

St. John, like many a right-wing ideologue, is a devotee of ad hominem.

June 6, 2011

Wisconsin Supreme Court schedules goat rodeo

SCOWI oral argument preview: Mike Gableman is "tireless, indefatigable and brilliant." — Justice David Prosser 04/18/11
In re: 2011AP000765-W and 2011AP000613-LV

This morning's line-up:
State ex rel Mike Huebsch: 50 minutes (Maria Lazar [?])
Dane County Circuit Court: 15 minutes (Dean Strang)
Dane County District Atty: 15 minutes (Ismail Ozanne)
State Rep. Peter Barca (D): 10 minutes (Bob Jambois*)
State Sen. Mark Miller (D): 10 minutes (Lester Pines)
Sec. of State Doug La Follette: 10 minutes (Roger Sage)
Huebsch rebuttal: 10 minutes [Misc. DOJ]
The festivities commence at 9:45 a.m., Central Standard Time.

Now maybe the Wisconsin Department of Justice will explain how and why Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law is unconstitutional, complete with citations to relevant 17th century English parliamentary common law.

Livetweeting (hopefully).

* Jambois should feature among the highlights.

eta 01: Deputy AG Kevin St. John appeared for State ex rel Huebsch and Dean Strang's law firm colleague Marie Stanton appeared for the Dane County Circuit Court (Judge Sumi). Those are all the attorneys the court heard from by 12:10 p.m. before adjourning for lunch until 1:30, so that's only two lawyers down and five to go. Gonna be a looong day.

Hard to say where things are going to shake out at this point but — and, real superficial observation here — the court's so-called conservatives appear to be more inclined to sympathize with the DOJ's demand for what is essentially judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

eta 02: "17th century English parliamentary common law." Think I was joking eh? St. John actually invoked it, without being prompted. It's supposed to override the laws of Wisconsin. This is how the DOJ argues.

Res ipsa loquitur.

May 28, 2011

How Patrick McIlheran lies for the WISGOP

Perfect example right here:
One Dane County judge rules that collective bargaining reform is unacceptable ...
This is your Journal Communications, Inc. brand of journalism.

But as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, both the federal Constitution and the Wisconsin constitution confer the judicial power equally to both higher and lower courts.* And as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, her ruling was directed at "the March 9, 2011 action of the Legislature's Joint Committee of Conference" and not whether the Walker administration's policy was acceptable or not.

Journal Communications, Inc.'s Patrick McIlheran is flat-out lying.

On the other hand, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is "representing the Republicans," makes repeated explicit defenses of Republican political policy in its latest filing with the Supreme Court pursuant to its attempt to have that court legislate from the bench.

The DOJ, on behalf of Scott Walker's infamous building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch, has gone so far as to suggest that the one Dane County judge, Maryann Sumi, violated the State code of judicial ethics by responding to the DOJ's petition for a supervisory writ (it's not an appeal, as has been widely reported). Now that is remarkable.

The Supreme Court, which does indeed have superintending authority over the (lower) circuit courts, on May 4 ordered Judge Sumi to file a response to the Huebsch/DOJ petition. Yes, ordered. The DOJ suggests that Judge Sumi should have exercised her option not to respond. The Wisconsin Rules of Appellate Procedure, at Wis. Stat. § 809.51(2), allow that a respondent to a petition for supervisory writ "may file a letter stating that he or she does not intend to file a response."

In other words, a respondent is not exempt or excepted from the Supreme Court's order but may disobey an order of the Supreme Court. Respondents to petitions for a supervisory writ are not limited to "court[s] and the presiding judge[s]," but the petition may be filed against "other person[s] or bod[ies]." And clearly Judge Sumi is in a different position vis-à-vis the Supreme Court than other persons or bodies not courts and presiding judges. Yet the Wisconsin Department of Justice suggests she should have disobeyed the Supreme Court's order.

Obviously Judge Sumi did not disobey an order of the Supreme Court.

And for not disobeying the Supreme Court's order, the Department of Justice is now veiledly threatening to file a motion for recusal against Judge Sumi, despite the fact that the ultimate determination for Judge Sumi's disqualification from the case of Ozanne v. Fitzgerald resides with Judge Sumi, once again, according to the black letter State law.

So at this point the Department of Justice is merely throwing stuff against the wall to find out if any of it will stick, in the course of its "representation of the Republicans." Thus whose impartiality is under question here is pretty obvious. And it sure ain't Judge Sumi's.

All of which demonstrates at least three things: (1) the ideological zealotry of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, (2) Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's acquiescence to Mr. St. John getting on this breakaway, and (3) the WISGOP Republicans' abject terror at attempting to have their union-busting bill passed by a non-illegal procedure.

McIlheran's bald lie is put forth in service of advertising his appearance tomorrow morning on another Journal Communications, Inc. buffoon's teevee show, Charlie Sykes's Sunday Insight [sic], which runs on Journal Communications, Inc.'s teevee station, TMJ-4. And of course Sykes is also an employee of Journal Communications, Inc.'s radio station, WTMJ.

There you have it, Journal Communications, Inc.'s corpo-blanketing of Milwaukee media with conservative Republican talking points. Because I wouldn't expect a discussion of the Rules of Appellate Procedure among Charlie Sykes and his guests tomorrow, who also include one of the most absurd conservative Republican political hacks in Wisconsin, Brian Fraley.

Roughly as absurd as the political hacks at Journal Communications, Inc.

* Matter of fact the same principle was invoked here in defense of J.B. Van Hollen, which days of defending JBVH at this space are long gone.

June 10, 2011

Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts five new cases

But none of them is "Petition of Walker."

WICourts.gov news release.

One is of a part to the ongoing Miranda warning wrangle, however.

Which reminds me, on Monday, Deputy AG Kevin St. John declared that "the Open Meetings Law is not a rule of constitutional law," by way of claiming the requirements of the OML are not explicitly mandated by the Wisconsin constitution. According to the identical reasoning, Mr. St. John might further argue that neither is the Miranda warning "a rule of constitutional law." However, we know that it is indeed a rule of constitutional law because former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (and formerly of Shorewood, Wisconsin) William Rehnquist told us so in the celebrated Miranda case, 2000's Dickerson v. United States.*

Thus if we apply the reasoning of Dickerson to Walker's predicament, the governor and his Republican friends and counsel don't fare so well.

So in retrospect maybe he/they didn't want to go there.

* This was a pretty good blawg poast, if I do say so meself.

September 28, 2010

Ron Johnson impugns the founding documents

Too many lawyers in the Senate, complains Ron Johnson.* 57%.

Signers of the Declaration of Independence:

Josiah Bartlett — Judge; William Whipple — Judge; Matthew Thornton — Judge; John Adams — Lawyer; Robert Treat Paine — Lawyer, Judge; Stephen Hopkins — Lawyer; William Ellery — Lawyer, Judge; Roger Sherman — Lawyer, Judge; Samuel Huntington — Lawyer, Judge; William Williams — Judge; Oliver Wolcott — Lawyer, Judge; Lewis Morris — Judge; Richard Stockton — Lawyer, Judge; Francis Hopkinson — Lawyer, Judge; John Hart — Judge; Abraham Clark — Lawyer; Benjamin Franklin — Honorary Doctor of Law; John Morton — Judge; James Smith — Lawyer; James Wilson — Lawyer, Judge; George Ross — Lawyer, Judge; Caesar Rodney — Judge; George Read — Lawyer, Judge; Thomas McKean — Lawyer, Judge; Samuel Chase — Lawyer, Judge; William Paca — Lawyer, Judge; Thomas Stone — Lawyer; George Wythe — Lawyer, Judge; Thomas Jefferson — Lawyer; William Hooper — Lawyer, Judge; John Penn — Lawyer; Edward Rutledge — Lawyer; Thomas Heyward, Jr. — Lawyer, Judge; Thomas Lynch, Jr. — Lawyer; Lyman Hall — Judge; George Walton — Lawyer, Judge

36/56 = 64%

Signers of the United States Constitution:

George Read — Lawyer, Judge; Gunning Bedford, Jr. — Lawyer; John Dickinson — Lawyer; Richard Bassett — Lawyer, Judge; Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer — Judge; John Blair — Lawyer, Judge (U.S. Supreme Court); John Rutledge — Lawyer, Judge (U.S. Supreme Court); Charles Cotesworth Pinckney — Lawyer; William Few — Lawyer, Judge; Abraham Baldwin — Lawyer; Nicholas Gilman — Bankruptcy Commissioner; Nathaniel Gorham — Judge; Rufus King — Lawyer; William Samuel Johnson — Lawyer; Roger Sherman — Lawyer, Judge; Alexander Hamilton — Lawyer; William Livingston — Lawyer; David Brearly — Lawyer, Judge; William Paterson — Lawyer, Judge (U.S. Supreme Court); Jonathan Dayton — Lawyer; Benjamin Franklin — Honorary J.D.; Jared Ingersoll — Lawyer, Judge; James Wilson — Lawyer; Gouverneur Morris — Lawyer

24/39 = 62%**

(Not counting "career politicians.")

So what was Ron Johnson's point again?

Oh, right. There's not enough millionaires in the Senate.

* The lone accountant, incidentally, is Republican of Wyoming Mike Enzi, who has been a "career politician" for going on 37 years.

That is, more than half of his life (Sen. Enzi is 66).

** James Madison is not among these. But he, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay (a lawyer and future Chief Justice), authored the Federalist Papers, so JM knew a thing or three about the law.

September 4, 2008

St. Paul stumbles on another Saviour

"Snide efficiency" is how Illinois Senator Barack Obama's campaign adviser David Axelrod described Sarah Palin's well-rehearsed teleprompted performance last night. That's about right. I haven't heard such a boring litany of Kulturkampf platitudes since I cancelled my subscription to Jerry Falwell's weekly political newsletter.

Predictably, local Palin apologists are hailing her tedious, Holy Ghostwritten sermon to the already safely converted "a masterwork." Yes, you read that correctly: "a masterwork." The work of a master. It's right up there with the Mass in B Minor, King Lear, and (most appropriately) Botticelli's Adoration of the Magi, don't you know.

Sean Hannity called it one of the greatest speeches "in history," as Karl Rove nodded sagely in agreement. That would be the same Karl Rove who derided Virginia governor and former mayor of the city of Richmond Tim Kaine's lack of executive experience while Kaine was under consideration as Barack Obama's running mate.

Now the less-than-half-a-term Alaska governor and former mayor of the village of Wasilla Sarah Palin's considerably less impressive executive experience is suddenly an embarrassment of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and she just delivered one of the greatest orations "in history."

"In history." Thucydides, meet Hannity.

The "masterwork" characterization, incidentally, issues from the same observer who just got finished wagging a righteously indignant finger at those who might mention Sarah Palin's daughter (in the course of mentioning Sarah Palin's daughter by name ten times across nine mercifully brief paragraphs — doubtless a Google-hit bonanza) but more recently gushes that "the youngest daughter is an adorable little ham."

No mention of the infant son passed off from hand to hand like a ham for Republican teevee cameras, however. Those children are off limits. Right. Except by way of praising the masterworks of a squadron of partisan masterworkers, apparently.

Oh, just let Sarah Palin be a proud mother and soon-to-be grandmother, so we are told, and I'm all for that. She's a creationist, you'd expect her to be creating, and creating to be expecting.

But don't tell me they're "off limits" at the same instant you're parading them around a national political convention on full saturation national network teevee in the hopes of soliciting votes by means of that parading. Not that I'm planning on taking any cheap slapshots, but don't say you aren't practically begging for them, hockey moms for Sarah, hottest governor from the coolest State.

Besides, didn't John McCain's own campaign manager just inform us that this presidential election isn't about the issues?

There were few raised last night in St. Paul. If there were, they were buried too subtly amongst the petty sniping, and the resounding on-cue ovations for same from the "family values" crowd (and a less-than-capacity one, at that — that was some clever camouflaging of the rows upon rows of empty seats).

As for whatever substance Sarah Palin did have to offer — and there was little that wasn't either fake or false — James Rowen correctly points to her condescending mockery of community organizers.

Everybody knows you can pretty much write your own ticket with a Harvard law degree. But Obama took his and went back to Chicago's South Side to work with the unemployed and other folks down on their luck. And for this he's scourged by the so-called Christian conservatives? That would be Christian as in Jesus who, if I recall correctly, was something of a community organizer himself.

Speaking of Jesus, how about that guest speaker at Sarah Palin's Assembly of God church last month who blames terrorist attacks in Israel on the Jewish victims' failure to convert to Christianity?

That's part of God's judgment, said the preacher. Another of God's judgments was awarding a $30 billion gas pipeline to a Calgary, Alberta company, according to Sarah Palin. Mysterious ways, etc.

Are these bizarre views off limits too? No more than is Obama's experience as a community organizer, I reckon. After all, Jeremiah Wright opened that door, did he not? And Michael Pfleger, another community organizer and Catholic priest who adopted three African American kids but who local gibbering primate and even more ridiculous Palin apologist Charlie Sykes famously called a "racist"?

And talk about elitism. What did warm-up act Rudolph Giuliani, an extremely wealthy man, do with his NYU law degree? Roll up his sleeves and head down to Bed-Stuy? No, he used it to, among other things, obtain a deferment from the Vietnam draft. Of course these days he's shouting up and down over John McCain's Vietnam service. He didn't have to be jealous; he needed that law degree, after all.

Never mind Mitt Romney, another of last night's featured Obama-bashers, whose personal net worth is approaching 10% of the entire Alaska State budget. They don't come any more elite.

Speaking of Alaska, don't they have community organizers up there? Maybe they aren't needed, because guess which State of the Union receives more per capita federal transfer payments than any other? You guessed right. Damn that pork, and damn those earmarks, eh?

Residents of Illinois, on the other hand, get about 45% of the federally transferred dollars their Alaskan counterparts do. And things are just a bit rougher on Chicago's South Side than they are in the village of Wasilla, AK. Albeit, fewer rampaging caribou, maybe.

And freshly minted GOP superstar Sarah Palin? As governor, she once did the official honor of auctioning off an airplane on eBay.* So take heart, America. While only some doctors believe a president John McCain's mortal coil might well stubbornly resist shuffling off for another four years, this week's featured seller, sarah_barracuda44, has 94.3% positive feedback.

Among hardcore Christian conservative Republicans, that is. Last night's televised festival of self-congratulation and typical Republican political mockery and divisiveness will convince few others, if any.

* Er, not quite.

August 31, 2011

Prosser's conduct: Next steps

One Wisconsin Now is filing an open records request to obtain any written and electronic communications between the four conservative justices, David Prosser, Mike Gableman, Annette Ziegler and Patience Roggensack, and Scott Walker's office, the office of Mike Huebsch, and Scott and Jeff Fitzgeralds' offices.
You can visit the link to chip in a few bucks.

Walker wasn't a named party to the so-called "supervisory/original" action that the Supreme Court heard and decided but Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John admitted — reluctantly — under questioning from the Chief Justice that it was indeed Scott Walker who instigated the petition. Mike Huebsch is Walker's Secretary of Administration who made the notorious estimate of $7.5 million to repair "damage" to the State Capitol building in the wake of demonstrations in February and March.

The actual figure turned out to be just over 100 grand, and even that included for repairs to existing wear and tear from years gone by, some of which was caused by people in wheelchairs. Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, brother of Scott, is reportedly running for the U.S. Senate.

At least, that's what the Wausau Daily Herald editorial board said Fitzgerald told them. But then a spokesman for Fitzgerald said it would be against the law for Fitzgerald to say that. Not like the law prevented WISGOP legislative activities in the past, which the four "conservatives" on the Wisconsin Supreme Court said was perfectly fine with them.

October 25, 2009

Can you imagine the outrage?!?

Um ... no. Fox "News" again.



What, now they want a marriage certificate too?* However, according to Rebecca Rapp St. John, an assistant attorney general with the Wisconsin Department of Justice, "baby mama" can mean your wife, the mother of your children. Which is probably news to most people.

* Page nine: NSFW.

June 15, 2011

A corporation, but not a Gableman, is a person

CAPITOL KAOS
A person may request the supreme court to take jurisdiction of an original action by filing a petition which may be supported by a memorandum. — Wis. Stat. § 809.70
Bet you didn't know that person could be Mike Gableman.

Until yesterday, to be sure, when neither did anybody else.
A person may request the court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction or its original jurisdiction to issue a prerogative writ over a court and the presiding judge, or other person or body, by filing a petition and supporting memorandum. — § 809.51
That is, § 809.70 or § 809.71. Either one or the other. Not and. I refer the reader to the small catalog of propositional operators contained in any introductory text on logic, beginning from Aristotle's (c. 360 BCE).

Now Huebsch (by his counsel the Department of Justice) is a person:
PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT.
§ 809.71 — State ex rel. Michael D. Huebsch, 04.07.2011
Yet the following appeared at 4:45 p.m. on June 14, in an unsigned order of the court but reputedly the handiwork of Mike Gableman:
On June 6, 2011, this court ... heard argument addressing whether the court should accept either the certification or the petition for supervisory/original jurisdiction or both; the court also heard argument on the merits of the pending matters.
The certification was a separate case, and was dismissed. The forward slash conjoining 'supervisory' to 'original' is a fabrication from whole cloth. So-called conservative jurisprudence by typographical insertion.

In the Wisconsin statutes, the distinction between the court's supervisory and original jurisdictions is codified by their separate numberings:
§ 809.70 and § 809.71. The Department of Justice chose the latter.

It would not have occurred to the Department of Justice to petition the court to take jurisdiction of an original action because Ozanne v. Fitzgerald could not, obviously, be an original action for the purposes of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Hence the supervisory petition.
¶7 This court has granted the petition for an original action ...
No such petition existed, until the Gableman court manufactured it.

WMC's Mike Gableman, who a three-appellate-judge panel found in 2009 to have violated two separate provisions of the Wisconsin code of judicial ethics (Gableman was a judge on an "inferior court" — as Kevin St. John would have it — at the time) campaigned on a political platform of "strict constructionism" and the faithful adherence to legal texts.

Evidently those were lies as well.

And this is not the first time that Gableman has conjured a creative interpretation of the Supreme Court's jurisdictional authorities. The present instance is not of judicial activism, but of judicial arrogance.

Ironically, Gableman's cohort Justice Prosser purports to justify the court's exercising original jurisdiction by mysterious reference to the State constitution, according to an apparently broad reading of that document, or precisely that manner of reading denied to the people of Wisconsin, who sought only a reasonable — indeed, a practically de minimis — access to the legislative activities of their representatives.

The Republican legislative leaders betrayed even that.

Of course the largest irony of all is that the Gableman court attempts to validate its fiat on separation of powers grounds, but yesterday's decree indicates nothing except an amalgamation of partisan, political powers.

This space will return at the end of the month, fully recharged.

June 2, 2011

Wisconsin letter of the day

From Lester Pines, counsel for State Sen. Mark Miller, to the clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, blasting Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John for coming "perilously close" to violating SCR 20:8.2* (.pdf; 3 pgs.).

Meanwhile the Supreme Court's docket still shows oral argument scheduled for Monday, June 6, related to Scott Walker's building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch's petition for a supervisory writ, a petition grounded in challenging a temporary injunction that doesn't even exist any more (it was superseded by Sumi's final judgment).

Fitz Van Walker's multi-ring circus gets more ridiculous every day.

It's gotten so bad that our old friend perfesser to the wing-nuts Rick Esenberg, at the Marquette law school's faculty blog refers to "[t]he Zimmerman and Goodland cases" in support of his allegedly profound doctrinal claims, despite Goodland v. Zimmerman being one case.**

I guess when all you have is hand waving, inventing precedent works too.

And Journal Communications, Inc. loves the guy, of course.

It's comical.

* Supreme Court Rule 20:8.2: "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge ... "

** Goodland v. Zimmerman is a 1943 decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. If the Open Meetings Law didn't contain eleventeen provisions expressly superseding the holding in Goodland, this case would be a slam dunk, and Judge Sumi would have ruled opposite to what she has done. What I find amusing is that so-called judicial conservatives (e.g., Rick Esenberg) now deriding Judge Sumi for following to the letter what the legislature has laid down instead of the holding of seven "black robed elites" in Goodland will just as facilely in different circumstances deride similarly situated judges for following judge-made doctrine instead of the clear directives of the democratically elected legislature. There are no judicial "principles" to so-called judicial conservatism. It is purely a matter of what is convenient under which circumstances that are most suitable for the furtherance of conservative political policy, in this case, the gutting of the collective bargaining rights of public employees.

Other examples, from the work of Justice Prosser, may be found here.

Conversely, Judge Sumi's reasoning is an example of what conservative jurisprudence is supposed to be. Which is why, if it does indeed come to pass that the "conservatives" on the Wisconsin Supreme Court do get around to reversing Judge Sumi, as is desperately pleaded for by the Fitz Van Walker regime and its disciples, that court's own reasoning cannot be anything other than tortured and circuitous by comparison to Judge Sumi's. And the attendant celebration by the disciples will be even sillier.

July 20, 2011

Wisconsin Senator Dave Hansen: He lives!

Hansen "survives," sez Politico dot com. Gimme a break.

survive, v., continue to live in spite of an accident or ordeal.

There was an accident, alright, in that the WISGOP's only other relatively viable candidate couldn't scrounge up a measly 400 signatures to get on the ballot. And there was an ordeal, alright, in that the candidate the WISGOP did field was rather unique, except it's the WISGOP that's enduring the ordeal of being represented by its candidates' uniqueness.

Seriously, Politico, Dave Hansen won nearly 70% of the vote in a Senate district comprising three Assembly districts, each of which went to Republicans in the "Tea Party" of November 2010. In fact one of those Assembly districts belongs to John Nygren, the fellow who couldn't raise 400 signatures (or 399, which he could have if he signed his own name).

David VanderLeest, the unique candidate that the WISGOP put against Hansen, received 5,000 fewer votes than the number of signatures that the WISGOP collected to force last night's election in the first place.

That seems pretty unique too. What happened to the other 5,000?

Gone back to Utah?
"I don't think it tells us too much about the big issues in the recalls — collective bargaining and senators leaving the State," said St. Norbert College political scientist David G. Wegge.
To the contrary, it says quite a lot, considering yesterday's general election was directly inspired by Dave Hansen's decision to leave the State in order to draw public attention to the Fitz Van Walker regime's hitherto unadvertised plan to crush the right to collective bargaining.

Instead, Prof. Wegge informs us, "it was much more about a mismatch." The embedded assumption, it appears, is that Hansen v. Nygren would have been less of a mismatch, which is probably true. But it's not as if some extraneous set of circumstances or Acts of God prevented John Nygren from participating to the extent political scientists might be in a better position to evaluate substantively. It's that John Nygren himself couldn't muster enough WISGOP support to challenge Hansen. Sheesh.

April 26, 2010

TX GOP official is the go-to Commerce Clause guy

St. John said Taffora was not available for an interview but wouldn’t give a reason why.
Interesting little tidbit.

May 23, 2008

Somebody you don't have to speak to

Bob Dylan, who turns 67 tomorrow, will be doing it onstage not in New York or Los Angeles or Hibbing or Paris but in, of all places, St. John's, Newfoundland. Then it's off to Reykjavik, Estonia, and Lithuania. The Never Ending Tour, indeed.

According to Bill Pagel's massive database at BobLinks.com, the last time Dylan performed on his birthday was in Dresden, Germany in 2000, where he played seven encores and remarked, "I'll be remembering this birthday for awhile."

Since there's been yet more controversy over same-sex marriage again lately, here's a number that some Dylanologists have surmised to be about a gay man. I'm not sure whether Bob has either confirmed or denied that interpretation, but it makes sense.

Not as an admission by one of the most notorious skirt chasers of all times, but rather as a bit of compassion.



Happy Birthday, Mr. D.

(And Mr. F. and Mr. R.)

May 12, 2008

Monday Night Mailbag

An anonymous reader writes: "You should get caught up in your knowledge of human origin. May I suggest that you visit the New Creation Science Museum in Ohio? One of their directors was a top evolution scientist that finally openly admitted the flaws of the theory. Perhaps, you could also be open minded."

Dear Anonymous, Petersburg, KY isn't anywhere near the top of my list of places to visit before I die and I doubt I could be persuaded to patronize the said "museum." Not without the assistance of organic hallucinogens, at any rate. Besides, I've already seen everything they've got a hundred times or more. But thanks just the same.

The Creation Museum is the stillborn brainchild of a supercilious nincompoop from Australia called Ken Ham, who, amongst a miscellany of other slapsticks, insists the universe is 6,000 years old. Ken Ham makes you long for the days when they used to send the criminals to Australia.

But Ken Ham is at least consistent. He thinks every word in the Bible is literally true, and that if even one word of the Bible isn't literally true, then not one other word of the Bible is literally true either. It's a compelling logic for millions of Americans, it is said. It's also an extravagantly risible fallacy, but never mind.

Apparently it would also crush Ken Ham's otherwise indomitable Faith to learn that the sun didn't "stand still" in the sky, pi is greater than three, or the mustard plant does not bear the smallest of seeds.

Ken Ham claims that if you add up the generations of the Old Testament (which include a number of mythic heroes and longsuffering heroines alleged to have lived for several hundred years) then you arrive at the Biblically correct age of the universe.

W3 is a star formation region in the constellation Perseus (a mere) 7,500 light years from Earth. A light year is the distance it takes light to travel in one year at about 59 million feet per minute. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, then the light from W3 wouldn't have reached us yet, and we couldn't see it. Yet, there it is.

So much for Ken Ham. But still, hundreds of thousands of dupes flock to his Kentucky carnival. That would be two feet every minute, in P.T. Barnumese, albeit slower than the speed of light, or even the short bus in third gear on its way to the Creation Museum.

Here's the manner of rigorously scientific installation you'll encounter at "the creationist Disneyland":
A male teenager is shown sitting at a computer looking at internet pornography and a female teenager speaks with Planned Parenthood about having an abortion; both acts are blamed on their belief that the Earth is "millions of years" old. The climax of the tour is the life of Jesus Christ, with a three-dimensional depiction of the crucifixion.
Let's hope they got that much right. By the way, why is it that they never seem to tire of killing him? We get it; enough already.

While the godless may — and not a few do — point and laugh, professional theologians are genuinely concerned:
The Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, said, "My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept" and "make us a laughingstock." Roman Catholic theologian John Haught [said] it will cause an "impoverishment" of religion." Michael Patrick Leahy, editor of the magazine Christian Faith and Reason, says that by replacing the scientific method with biblical literalism, the museum undermines the credibility of all Christians and makes it easy to represent Christians as irrational.
I wouldn't go that far, but a subset for certain includes at least Ken Ham and his nitwit apostles. Anyway, they present their own selves as irrational. There are a few comical tours of the Creation Museum online. These two are pretty funny, as well as lavishly illustrated:

Incest, child abuse feature at Creation Museum — BlueGrassRoots
Not just your average load of horseshit — John Scalzi / Whatever

September 5, 2008

Cease and desist, the porpoise said

Ann and Nancy Wilson of the 1970s band Heart are displeased with the GOP's use of their chart topping hit Barracuda to market John McCain's vice-presidential running mate.

The hard driving classic rock number pounded out over the P.A. system as the closing notes to this week's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN to the delight of reveling conventioneers.
"I think it's completely unfair to be so misrepresented," [Nancy Wilson] said in a phone call to EW.com after [McCain's] speech. "I feel completely f---ed over." She and sister Ann Wilson then e-mailed the following exclusive statement:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women."
Interestingly, some of the original band members were draft dodgers who moved to Vancouver, British Columbia just prior to Heart's heyday, and the Wilson sisters relocated there as well, although it's not clear whether the former POW John McCain and his supporters were grooving to their work or that of Canadian studio musicians.

The song's similarly unvetted lyrics refer to the Barracuda as "lying low in the weeds" and accuse the Barracuda of "mak[ing] up something real quick" if "the real thing don't do the trick."

In the past, the GOP paid much closer attention to its musical accompaniments, as when it broadcast The Who's Won't Get Fooled Again during George W. Bush's year 2000 celebrations, but well advisedly switched back to some NASCAR banjo music before the line, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

McCain consultants preemptively nixed any reprise of that song at this year's convention for obvious reasons, among which may be its remarkable applicability.

April 5, 2008

Music v. Noise Part 2

The first Futurist opera, Victory Over the Sun, was presented in St. Petersburg in October, 1913, with music by the Russian composer Mikhail Matyushin, and with sets and costumes designed by the Constructionist artist Kasimir Malevich. Essentially a collection of incomprehensible nonsense, the opera concerned a group of "Futurecountrymen" attempting to conquer the sun. The librettist, Alexei Kruchenykh, demanded that the performers, attracted by a casting call that stated, "Actors, do not bother to come, please," pronounce the words with pauses between each syllable: "The cam-el-like fac-to-ries al-read-y threat-en us …" which had the effect of "getting on everyone's nerves."

While the premiere was generally a success attended by like-minded artists and students and guarded by large numbers of policemen, the critics were uniformly unkind, causing the composer Matyushin to deride their "herd mentality." However, Victory Over the Sun is notable for representing a "comprehensive collaboration by the poet, the musician and the artist, setting a precedent for the years to come."

Nor was ballet immune from the assault of the merry pranksters. A new group of iconoclasts had arisen after the First World War that called itself the Dadaists, a loosely knit assembly of poets, painters, amateur boxers and hangers-on that included the Frenchman Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp had first gained notoriety with his 1911 painting Nude Descending a Staircase, a work very much influenced by the Italian Futurist painters. Duchamp's general irreverence and nuttiness were to have a profound effect on 20th century art. (In fact many years later Duchamp and his wife Teeny were to participate in a composition by the American composer John Cage, in which the production of tones was linked to a chess game played by Cage and Duchamp.)

In 1917 Duchamp submitted to an art exhibition in New York a porcelain urinal, which he had purchased from a plumbing shop, laid on its back, signed in black pen, "R. Mutt 1917," and titled, "Fountain." Although it was rejected by the selection committee, its status as a "found object" is legendary, and represents the first instance of an everyday object ostensibly elevated to the status of art merely by the act of it having been selected by the artist.

On December 4, 1924, the Dadaists presented their ballet Relâche — which means both "relaxation" and is the theatrical expression for "no performance tonight" — based on a scenario instigated by Duchamp's accomplice in hijinks, Francis Picabia. Relâche had been commissioned by Rolf de Maré, director of the Parisian Ballets Suédois. The production began with a man dressed in firefighter's gear, chain smoking in direct contravention of the theatre's building code, who continued shifting a quantity of water between two buckets throughout the evening.

The ballet is in two parts, with a film, Entr'acte, projected between "acts." The film begins with shots from various angles of a bearded man dressed in a ballerina's costume jumping up and down on a glass pane, and ends with a grinning corpse emerging from a coffin that had been dropped on the ground, and features music by the eccentric French composer Erik Satie: "Satie's exasperatingly minimalist music, whose repetitions recall nothing so much as a needle stuck in the groove of a phonograph record … was claimed as the first music written expressly for a film."

The second act continues the absurdist provocation, and includes the prominent display of a large sign that reads, "Satie is the greatest musician in the world." The production concluded with its authors, including Satie, driving onto the stage in a tiny five horsepower Citroën. "They were greeted with catcalls, and the Ballet Suédois was dissolved forever." As de Maré put it: "Relâche was too much for all of us." The 58-year-old Satie was savaged in the press. "Adieu, Satie," read the headlines, and the scandal was attached to his name until his death less than a year later.

Satie was no stranger to balletic shenanigans. In 1917, he had been involved in another production in Paris, Parade, with a text by Jean Cocteau and sets and costumes by Pablo Picasso. Satie worked for an entire year on the score, which incorporated many of Cocteau's suggestions for instrumentation, such as "typewriters, sirens, aeroplane propellers, Morse tappers, and lottery wheels." Parade, which features characters dressed as ten-foot-high skyscrapers and teams of acrobats performing to frenetic waltzes played on xylophones, predictably attracted widespread derision. Satie was denounced, and replied to one conservative critic, "Vous n'êtes qu'un cul, mais un cul sans musique," which translates roughly as, "You are only an ass, but an ass without music." Satie was actually fined heavily for making this remark.

All of this cacophony and calculated outrage inevitably led to, of all things, silence, and John Cage's 1952 composition 4'33". Yet Cage was perfectly aware that complete silence was physically unachievable, which he had proven to himself the year before by sequestering himself in an anechoic chamber at Harvard University. There he became aware of two remaining sounds: those of his own nervous and circulatory systems. 4'33" is comprised of three sections, each of which was demarcated by its original performer, the pianist David Tudor, by successive opening and closing of the keyboard lid.

Although one might expect Cage's watershed composition to mark, in some sense, the end of music and the beginning of postmodern sensibility, the idea of non-music involving instruments never played was extended by the American composer LaMonte Young, who in the early 1960s wrote a number of pieces that reflect both Cage's ideas and those of his Dadaist precursors. The "score" for Young's Piano Piece for David Tudor #1 reads as follows: "Bring a bale of hay and a bucket of water onto the stage for the piano to eat and drink. The performer may then feed the piano or leave it to eat by itself. If the former, the piece is over after the piano has been fed. If the latter, it is over after the piano eats or decides not to."

Or Young's Composition 1960 #7, which consists simply of the simultaneous sounding of a B and an F#, with the direction, "to be held for a long time."

But the record for the most demonstrably irritating piece of music ever written must go to Terry Riley's In C, a relentlessly minimalist piano piece composed in 1964. The piece consists of nothing more than various permutations of a C major scale, repeated over 15 hours.

Of its New York premiere, a contemporary reviewer observed that halfway through the piece most of the audience had long since disappeared. Near the end of the performance, there was nobody left in the auditorium save for a handful of masochists, and when the piece finally concluded, one sado-masochist rose to his feet and shouted, "Encore!"

October 3, 2008

Clueless in St. Louis

For Senator John McCain and soulmate AK Gov. Sarah Palin, success means merely not being a total, unmitigated disaster.

And not being a total, umitigated disaster involves 90 minutes filled with vacuous talking points, tortured syntax, and "folksy" superficialities presided over by the least conscientious or effective debate moderator in recent memory, Gwen Ifill.

No follow-up questions, no effort to keep either participant to addressing the initial inquiries, and very little, if any, "debate." E.g., if you have to explain Achilles' heel, then by all means, do it.

Last night's encounter between Palin and Delaware Senator Joe Biden was, for the most part, a mighty tedious affair.

Even so, it had its entertaining moments, and we learned that Sarah Palin evidently favors a "living Constitution," complete with evolving standards pursuant to the role of the vice president:
We know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.
Reading that again, who knows what the hell she is talking about. Apparently Gwen Ifill was puzzled by this as well and asked:
Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
Palin replied that the founding fathers [sic] allowed "through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president" and that "Yeah, I do agree with [Cheney] that we have a lot of flexibility in there."

Needless to say, Sarah Palin is no Dick Cheney. But that she claims to see the vice presidency through the same lens as does Dick Cheney should comfort no one. Especially Dick Cheney, who surely must be privately appalled at the addled performances of his prospective successor.

But, as with the balance of Palin's rehearsed and notated verbiage, no details, no specifics, and, most importantly, no substance.

We also learned that when it comes to the current state of the economy, it's Wall Street bankers who are the victims:
It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street. And now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don't seize up. That's where the Main Streeters like me, that's where we would really feel the effects.
We were also treated to Palin's unique scientific method with respect to climatology. Asked "what is true and what is false" about the causes of the Earth's changing climate, Palin said, while acknowledging "there are real changes going on in our climate":
I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts.
Which naturally begs the question, if you don't determine the causes, how are you going to "get there to affect the impacts"? An amazingly dumb response.

Then there was EYE-RACK. What is Palin's plan for an exit strategy?

"I am very thankful that we do have a good plan." That was about it. Faced with Biden's observations that the U.S. has trained 400,000 Iraqi troops and that country has billions of dollars in the bank and it's about time they stepped up to the plate, Palin called that "a white flag of surrender." Nice sound bite, but not much of a riposte.

According to Palin, the Iraqi administration still can't govern its own people and its security forces still can't secure them, yet "the surge worked ... the surge works" despite Iraqi self-governance and security being the surge's objectives.

And "our commanders on the ground," predicted Palin, will decide when the Iraqi government is effectively governing. That's the military's latest mission, apparently, as political scientists.

That Sarah Palin is incoherent is bad enough. That she's not even aware of her incoherence is disturbing, to say the least.

Best of all, Palin promised "huge blunders" from a Palin-McCain administration. Good to know, and good to remember on Nov. 4.

As for Joe Biden, there was much post-debate criticism on the part of the paid punditry for his "speaking the language of Washington" and so forth. Well, what do those critics expect? Somebody has to state the record, which necessarily involves facts and figures, when somebody else is standing there blathering party platitudes that only infer and allude to misstated and misrepresented facts.

Thankfully, however, this debate is over and Sarah Palin can return to her role as bumbling sideshow and comic relief. Oh, and there is at least one holdover from the current Bush administration from which the Palin-McCain ticket will not allow us any escape: "nucular."

But Palin's debate performance, as generally non-disastrous as it was, will do nothing to improve John McCain's declining fortunes.