March 20, 2009

Strict constructionist strikes again

"As a strict constructionist," Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick gravely intones at every available opportunity.

How strict a constructionist is Koschnick, really. Not very. Speaking to Rotary Club members in Madison on Wednesday, Koschnick said:
When I first announced my candidacy last November, I offered a clean campaign pledge to Justice Abrahamson which I signed and which she declined to sign. And among the pledges that I proposed we would make would be that we would either refuse to accept contributions from lawyers who have cases pending or that we would recuse from those cases if we decided to accept the donation.
Except that isn't even what Koschnick's own "pledge" reads. It says:
refusing and returning contributions from parties with cases before their respective courts
Parties. Not lawyers. Lawyers are not parties. And no so-called strict constructionist would ever construe "parties" so expansively as to include the lawyers retained to represent them in court.

But apparently this strict constructionist does, when convenient.

If this is how Judge Koschnick construes his own words, then exactly what sort of liberally activist interpretive methodology can he be expected to apply to the words of other people? The mind boggles.

Neither does Judge Koschnick's "pledge" include for the numerous gyrations he's performed in his attempts to justify the fact that he's done exactly what he's accusing his political opponent of having done.

And here's a pertinent little reminder of what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say about campaign contributions a couple of weeks ago.


Brett said...

I'm thinking we should throw together a low budget comedic video that could be posted on You Tube in which various clips are assembled in an amusing order to showcase the absurdity of this candidate. Maybe Jon Stewart does pro-bono work.

illusory tenant said...

pro-bono work

Which just happens to be one of many reasons why the interests of parties and their lawyers are distinctly separable.

Jim Bouman said...

I've always liked the way the big dogs of the law fraternity--Foley&Lardner, Quarles&Brady etc-- brag about their 5% or 6% of effort devoted to Pro Bono work.

In a world enamored of dualistic thinking, could that mean that most of what they do is Pro Malo? (Or is that just a hangover from reading the current Grisham?)