tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post2085136028073421290..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: The anti-Federalist Societyillusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-79270684963399264702008-02-08T15:49:00.000-06:002008-02-08T15:49:00.000-06:00My guess is that will not be part of any campaign ...My guess is that will not be part of any campaign messaging on behalf of Justice Butler. I said it because, although I haven't looked at it systematically, it's my impression that the Chief Justice and Justice Bradley may vote slightly more often to overturn convictions or to exclude evidence. I didn't want to imply that he votes in this manner more than - or even as often as - those two because I don't know if that's true. I am confident that he votes for defendants more often than Prosser and Roggensack and, when he was on the court, Wilcox.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-46029569780277252842008-02-08T07:56:00.000-06:002008-02-08T07:56:00.000-06:00Justice Butler is more inclined to rule for defend...<I>Justice Butler is more inclined to rule for defendants (although maybe not as much as some others) than the "conservative" justices on the court.</I><BR/><BR/>And since it's just about calling them as you see them, and not about political hackery, one could expect this message (<I>Butler: reasonable centrist!</I>) to start appearing above your name during the campaign...<BR/><BR/>(Quite apart from its evidential status, I mean; unless "every knowledgeable lawyer knows" has suddenly risen above the level of mere rhetorical flourish/incipient No True Scot fallacy.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-7275672319134361892008-02-08T07:51:00.000-06:002008-02-08T07:51:00.000-06:00lol okay fair enough.And I'll be watching 4th Stre...lol okay fair enough.<BR/><BR/>And I'll be watching 4th Street Forum tonight, so look out!illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-23059626120740427282008-02-08T07:40:00.000-06:002008-02-08T07:40:00.000-06:00Can we stipulte that I think that all of your view...Can we stipulte that I think that all of your views are misbegotten and that I refuse to put that smiley sign in any of my posts?Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-81757924614175756212008-02-08T07:22:00.000-06:002008-02-08T07:22:00.000-06:00"Misbegotten" seems an unusual choice of adjective..."Misbegotten" seems an unusual choice of adjectives when most of what you're objecting to I didn't attribute to you personally, or else didn't say at all.<BR/><BR/>That you're a free agent doesn't alter the fact WMC seized on your Fed Soc paper as the theme for a number of its efforts.<BR/><BR/>I'm looking forward to seeing the content of WMC's inevitable negative campaign of issue advertising against Justice Butler, and whether these same themes make an appearance.<BR/><BR/>And I'm not alleging any conspiracy, I'm simply pointing out some facts. Whether people want to view them as coincidences or consonances is entirely up to them.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-5180572189384075652008-02-07T21:32:00.000-06:002008-02-07T21:32:00.000-06:00First, thanks for nice words on a paper that you m...First, thanks for nice words on a paper that you may not aree much with.<BR/><BR/>As for Marquette and its connection to the vast right wing conspiracy, we have four or so conservatives on the full time faculty and two of them started this year. Personally, I'd love it if one of my liberal colleagues found the time to be more active on local policy issues (some are in ways that they deem fit) or if we hired someone on the left who was. I don't have to guess that Joe would agree. I know it.<BR/><BR/>I responded to Mike's post in the way that I did because he persists in saying that I put Daniel up to what he wrote when I have made clear that I had nothing to do with it. He is a bright and energetic young man who is quite capable of doing all manner of things on his own. He has absolutely no reason to curry favor with me. He has a very nice job waiting for him after he graduates in May.<BR/><BR/>I never claimed anything about the relative proportion of Justice Butler's ruling for the defendant. I think I blogged - I know I've said - that it would surprise me if any justice ruled mostly for defendants in criminal cases. I have also said - and every knowledgeable lawyer knows - that Justice Butler is more inclined to rule for defendants (although maybe not as much as some others) than the "conservative" justices on the court. <BR/><BR/>Nor have I ever said that New Federalism is "activist." I have merely said that there is a difference of opinion as to whether and when state supreme courts should say that substantially similar language means something other than what SCOTUS says it means in the federal constitution. I think the correct answer is, essentially, sometimes but mostly not.<BR/><BR/>What I have objected to is the suggestion that this isn't a legitimate issue. That's why I thought the issue around Cleaver was not just a little detail, although I stand by what I said about you and your blog, as misbegotten as your views may be.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.com