March 27, 2008

capper, love him and hate him

I love capper because, well, what's not to love. But I also hate capper for alerting me to nonsense like this.

As I have explained and demonstrated repeatedly, one cannot label opinions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court as "pro-criminal" simply because a criminal defendant prevailed on the merits. To do so is both blatantly disingenuous and an essentially textbook example of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

("Poisoning the well" is actually a fairly apt description for the Gableman campaign nearly in its entirety, so that his supporters perpetrate it regularly and consistently is no surprise whatsoever.)

Since many of these cases involve extremely narrow and subtle questions pursuant to interpreting the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions — or some relationship between the two — one might as well just label the entire Bill of Rights as "pro-criminal."

Or, as Gableman's daft and monied supporters at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce would have it, a "needless technicality."

And to do that is effectively a disgraceful, un-American assault on the underpinnings of the entire U.S. system of justice, and not just criminal law justice. If that's the case, why even have courts? Or, for that matter, why not just completely scuttle the Bill of Rights altogether? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? Because that is precisely where Jessica McBride's faux "scholarship" leads.

And, as usual, McBride's laughably embarrassing misunderstandings practically jump off the page, horrifying grammar and all, e.g.,
[In State v. Jensen, Justice Butler] wanted looser standard than other justices on allowing hearsay; standard preferred by Jensen's attorney
Um, no. In FACT, Butler's lone dissent in Jensen, which appears likely to be affirmed by the considerably more conservative United States Supreme Court, argued for a TIGHTER, TWO-STEP APPROACH under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

Yet we're expected to accept McBride's "judgment calls"? Riiight.

Moreover, and perhaps not coincidentally, McBride's latest "analysis" arrives at exactly the same figure, 58%, that the Coalition for America's Families claims (58.62%, to be precise) in its monumentally inept and desperate failure to justify its original falsehood that Butler "sides with criminals 60% of the time."

I also explained Jensen in some detail more than once, most recently in this post. I've also pointed out — and this is very important — that
Butler's approach [in Jensen] exemplifies both narrow textualism and original intent, two doctrines of constitutional interpretation to which political conservatives normally proclaim undying devotion.
And that troublesome hypocrisy is but one especially compelling among countless reasons why this ridiculous designation of "pro-criminal" is, to say the very least, problematic.

According to Google Analytics, which tracks blog activity, the same individual "referred" by McBride's own Google account has been viewing on a nearly daily basis for several weeks. What's she doing, looking at the pictures?

Back to work.


Emily said...

I don't get it: Butler seems to have a pretty straight-forward record of adhering to the laws of the land, and appearing to be fairly moderate-to-conservative when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, etc. Why are these folks all up in arms about him?

They're crying about "activist judges," but seems to me that's exactly, what they want. Just, y'know, activist in their own specific interests.

illusory tenant said...

Butler seems to have a pretty straight-forward record of adhering to the laws of the land, and appearing to be fairly moderate-to-conservative when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, etc.

Indeed, my friend, he most certainly does. And he possesses an extremely keen and carefully analytical mind.

Why are these folks all up in arms about him?

Pure politics and misguided ideology, combined with an alarming misunderstanding of this country's fundamental system of democracy and justice and a disturbing propensity to disseminate and promote the same.

All of the things, in other words, according to which judges must not be evaluated.

Emily said...

That's what I suspected.

The anti-Butler forces seem to be rallying around a new battle cry now: what do you make of this?

illusory tenant said...

I make of it conveniently timed bullshit.

When you're a partner at a law firm working 16 hours a day and pulling down major wads of cake for said firm, nobody gives a rat's ass if you spend a few minutes volunteering your personal, unbillable services to a political campaign.

Jay Bullock said...

She's not modding any comments through on the new site. Good luck trying to explain to her and her readers why she's wrong.

Display Name said...

More right-wing one-way "conversations". Just what we needed. They are less than blogs. They just blo.

Other Side said...

Well, she did mod though one from an ardent fan who complimented her on an excellent post.


illusory tenant said...

No wonder she doesn't allow comments. She classifies Justice Butler's role in a case called State v. Daley as, "pro-criminal."

"Court vacated appellate decision affirming conviction," is McBride's terse description.

While the defendant was indeed asking for review of the appellate court decision affirming his conviction, guess who also wanted the appellate decision vacated, because it conflicted with an earlier appellate court opinion?

Correct, the State of Wisconsin. And the reason the (UNANIMOUS) Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's decision was so the appellate court could revisit the case in light of the earlier decision, which is what the State, not the defendant, wanted.

That's an example of Justice Butler's "pro-criminal" attitude.

capper said...

Liberals love me.

Fear-mongering, lie-spreading, hate-spewing, bigoted, racist, sexist, moronic neocons fear me.

Display Name said...

On these heavily moderated blogs, I try to post under my own name some kind of comment that to the casual eye sounds like a supporter but that upon the double-take, makes them think. Not quite like the B&S science teacher arrest, but just something snarky enough that it'll get past the very light examination they tend to give to block out the opposing opinions.

And Capper, if there were any fear-mongering, lie-spreading, hate-spewing, bigoted, racist, sexist, moronic liberals, they'd hate and fear you, too.