This letter appeared in the Watertown Daily Times yesterday:
I am rescinding my endorsement of Judge Michael Gableman for Wisconsin Supreme Court. I endorsed him because he had been a district attorney and I believed he would bring an understanding of law enforcement to the Supreme Court. However, a recent television ad released by him makes me believe that Michael Gableman is unfit for the Supreme Court.
Gableman's ad states that Louis Butler "worked to put criminals on the street," and then brings up a case involving Reuben Lee Mitchell and states, "Butler found a loophole and then Mitchell went on to molest another child."
First, this ad doesn't tell you that Justice Butler's involvement with the Reuben Lee Mitchell case was when Butler worked as an appellate attorney for the state public defender and not as a judge or justice. Butler was fulfilling his ethical duty as Mitchell's appellate defense attorney. He had nothing to do with this case as a judge or justice.
Second, Gableman's ad is inaccurate. Mitchell served his entire prison sentence. Butler's legal argument was deemed correct by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. However, Mitchell was not given a new trial. Mitchell's later conviction had nothing to do with Butler.
Third, in the United States of America, defendants have the constitutional right to an effective defense attorney under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution — one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. The accuracy of our criminal justice system to separate the guilty from the falsely accused is greatly reduced without competent defense counsel. Gableman's ad mocks this fundamental constitutional right which protects us all.
As a prosecutor, I firmly believe in convicting and properly punishing criminals, but I also understand that I have a duty to be certain that a defendant is actually guilty. A competent criminal defense attorney helps me be accurate.
I am troubled that a candidate for our highest court would belittle our constitutional right to counsel which enhances the accuracy of the criminal justice system. I am equally troubled by Gableman's cavalier disregard for accuracy in his representations to the public through this ad. The integrity of the criminal justice system should not be allowed to be tarnished by one man's ambitious desire for higher office. Judge Gableman will not be receiving my vote for Supreme Court justice in April.
Steven G. Bauer
District Attorney
Dodge County
March 20, 2008
March 19, 2008
McIlheran swallows the bait
Updated links below
Perhaps still feeling the effects of one too many Monday night pots of grog, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's in-house "right-wing guy" and unintentional comedian St. Paddy McIlheran appears to have ingested Jessica McBride's legal "analysis" hook, line, and sinker.
Trouble is, La McBride only had a preliminary draft working copy of the list of Wisconsin Supreme Court cases she attempted to get all Prof. Yale Kamisar on. Oopsies. Fortunately, we know better.
For one thing, the two cases McBride claims were "omitted" from the list and the said omissions contribute to "outright lies and distortions" are in fact contained on the list. And they are correctly designated by the Butler campaign as having been rulings in favor of the defendants. McBride is working from an incomplete document and she apparently didn't check before publishing her blog post, which she obviously didn't just throw together in the course of an evening.
Several of the other cases that McBride claims represent "outright lies and distortions" and "undeniable misrepresentations" on the part of Justice Butler are cases that involve procedural questions as opposed to appeals dealing directly with judgments of conviction. In those cases, it's at the very least fairly debatable as to whether Butler sided for or against law enforcement, as the sayings go.
For example, State v. James E. Brown is a unanimous decision authored by Justice David Prosser (the court's leading "traditionalist") spanking the circuit court for accepting Brown's guilty plea during a constitutionally faulty proceeding. Yet the Brown court gave the State of Wisconsin (read: law enforcement) another kick at the can, in that it ordered a hearing at which the State could present additional evidence as to why Brown's plea might be accepted nevertheless.
Whether or not the State was successful at the subsequent hearing has nothing whatsoever to do with Justice Butler. Butler simply agreed with the court's most conservative members that the initial plea hearing was ineffectively administered by the circuit court.
As a journalist, McBride likely wouldn't appreciate the working draft of a project similarly critiqued prior to its completion. But this is unsurprising, since she has something of a history of jumping the factual gun in favor of expressing zealous ideology.
Patrick McIlheran, on the other hand, can be less easily forgiven. As a prominent columnist at Milwaukee's only daily newspaper and haranguing from the pulpit it provides, he has a far greater responsibility for circumspection and skepticism.
Yet here he is, assisting in more widely disseminating accusations of "outright lying" on the part of Justice Butler. That is remarkably irresponsible for a so-called journalist, by anyone's standards.
I'm willing to bet he didn't spend one minute checking into any of McBride's claims. There's certainly no evidence that he did in his little piece of right-wing puffery. Needless to say, it's also a very poor reflection on the Journal-Sentinel itself.
eta 1: Marquette Law School's Rick Esenberg leaps to McBride's defense, and accuses me of "sniping around the edges." Funny.
eta 2: More from Atty. Mike Plaisted.
Perhaps still feeling the effects of one too many Monday night pots of grog, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's in-house "right-wing guy" and unintentional comedian St. Paddy McIlheran appears to have ingested Jessica McBride's legal "analysis" hook, line, and sinker.
Trouble is, La McBride only had a preliminary draft working copy of the list of Wisconsin Supreme Court cases she attempted to get all Prof. Yale Kamisar on. Oopsies. Fortunately, we know better.
For one thing, the two cases McBride claims were "omitted" from the list and the said omissions contribute to "outright lies and distortions" are in fact contained on the list. And they are correctly designated by the Butler campaign as having been rulings in favor of the defendants. McBride is working from an incomplete document and she apparently didn't check before publishing her blog post, which she obviously didn't just throw together in the course of an evening.
Several of the other cases that McBride claims represent "outright lies and distortions" and "undeniable misrepresentations" on the part of Justice Butler are cases that involve procedural questions as opposed to appeals dealing directly with judgments of conviction. In those cases, it's at the very least fairly debatable as to whether Butler sided for or against law enforcement, as the sayings go.
For example, State v. James E. Brown is a unanimous decision authored by Justice David Prosser (the court's leading "traditionalist") spanking the circuit court for accepting Brown's guilty plea during a constitutionally faulty proceeding. Yet the Brown court gave the State of Wisconsin (read: law enforcement) another kick at the can, in that it ordered a hearing at which the State could present additional evidence as to why Brown's plea might be accepted nevertheless.
Whether or not the State was successful at the subsequent hearing has nothing whatsoever to do with Justice Butler. Butler simply agreed with the court's most conservative members that the initial plea hearing was ineffectively administered by the circuit court.
As a journalist, McBride likely wouldn't appreciate the working draft of a project similarly critiqued prior to its completion. But this is unsurprising, since she has something of a history of jumping the factual gun in favor of expressing zealous ideology.
Patrick McIlheran, on the other hand, can be less easily forgiven. As a prominent columnist at Milwaukee's only daily newspaper and haranguing from the pulpit it provides, he has a far greater responsibility for circumspection and skepticism.
Yet here he is, assisting in more widely disseminating accusations of "outright lying" on the part of Justice Butler. That is remarkably irresponsible for a so-called journalist, by anyone's standards.
I'm willing to bet he didn't spend one minute checking into any of McBride's claims. There's certainly no evidence that he did in his little piece of right-wing puffery. Needless to say, it's also a very poor reflection on the Journal-Sentinel itself.
eta 1: Marquette Law School's Rick Esenberg leaps to McBride's defense, and accuses me of "sniping around the edges." Funny.
eta 2: More from Atty. Mike Plaisted.
God help us all
The ever-alert capper sends me this link today, which leads to a purported critique of a number of Wisconsin Supreme Court cases in which Justice Louis Butler participated. Evidently Jessica McBride, the doyenne of Wisconsin conservative bloggers, has turned her hand to legal analysis (hence the title of this post).
Butler, who has been under continual attack from his rival Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's deliberately misleading characterizations of many of those same cases, has responded by claiming that his record shows that he voted to uphold criminal convictions 75% of the time, or 97% including those cases where the court did not accept requests for review of the conviction.
I'm awful busy today but a cursory glance at McBride's "analysis" reveals the following pair of risible gems amongst the typically over-the-top rhetoric:
Or a court may decline to review, even where it might otherwise unanimously uphold a conviction, because no such constitutional clarification is deemed necessary. So it's hardly inappropriate to include the denials of review in such a calculation.
On the other hand, Gableman put out some campaign literature basing a calculation of his reversal rate as a circuit judge on 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets, which is so ridiculous as to make even a rudimentary observer of the courts inadvertently hose down his computer monitor with expectorated liquid java.
Eschewing scare italics for scare boldface, McBride goes on to say:
In the other case, State v. Bush, Butler wrote for a unanimous court in favor of upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 980 provisions against the motions of the defendant, who was previously deemed a sexually violent person. Furthermore, the issues addressed by the Supreme Court turn almost entirely on the defendant's sexually violent behavior, that is, criminal behavior.* As a matter of fact, Butler specifically and explicitly rejects Bush's claim that he is no longer dangerous, despite the evidence Bush presents.
Generally speaking, Bush is about as "anti-criminal" as they come. (That's a borrowing from McBride's own parlance, where "pro-constitutional" equates to "pro-criminal.")
Secondly, while Chapter 980 does not contain criminal statutes per se, you don't get to be a sexually violent person under Chap. 980 unless you've been convicted of a sexually violent offense, a conviction which is, obviously, a criminal conviction. McBride's distinction, in this context, is bordering on the graspingly ridiculous.
Thirdly, if McBride's distinction is accepted, then Gableman can't criticize Butler's record with respect to criminal cases where they involve Chapter 980 commitments, which would pretty much gut the central point of his entire campaign. "Louis Butler, soft on civil commitments!!!1" doesn't play quite as well with the mugs.
If these two examples are any indication of McBride's acumen as a legal analyst generally, I don't see much reason to read further.
* As opposed to civil behavior — :rimshot:
Butler, who has been under continual attack from his rival Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's deliberately misleading characterizations of many of those same cases, has responded by claiming that his record shows that he voted to uphold criminal convictions 75% of the time, or 97% including those cases where the court did not accept requests for review of the conviction.
I'm awful busy today but a cursory glance at McBride's "analysis" reveals the following pair of risible gems amongst the typically over-the-top rhetoric:
The 97% figure apparently includes cases that the court declined even to review.Yes, so? There's nothing wrong with that. For example, an appeals court (which is what the Supreme Court is) may accept review of a conviction, or a lower court's affirmative ruling on appeal from that conviction, even to unanimously uphold the said conviction, because the court wishes to clarify a constitutional question raised at trial or sentencing.
Or a court may decline to review, even where it might otherwise unanimously uphold a conviction, because no such constitutional clarification is deemed necessary. So it's hardly inappropriate to include the denials of review in such a calculation.
On the other hand, Gableman put out some campaign literature basing a calculation of his reversal rate as a circuit judge on 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets, which is so ridiculous as to make even a rudimentary observer of the courts inadvertently hose down his computer monitor with expectorated liquid java.
Eschewing scare italics for scare boldface, McBride goes on to say:
Butler makes a serious error in the law by misclassifying two sexual predator cases as criminal cases (Brown and Bush). Under the law, sexual predator cases are defined as civil commitments expressly so they pass Constitutional [sic] double jeopardy protections.First of all, the list of cases McBride provides contains three "Browns," but she doesn't tell us which one Butler's "serious error in the law" arises from.
In the other case, State v. Bush, Butler wrote for a unanimous court in favor of upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 980 provisions against the motions of the defendant, who was previously deemed a sexually violent person. Furthermore, the issues addressed by the Supreme Court turn almost entirely on the defendant's sexually violent behavior, that is, criminal behavior.* As a matter of fact, Butler specifically and explicitly rejects Bush's claim that he is no longer dangerous, despite the evidence Bush presents.
Generally speaking, Bush is about as "anti-criminal" as they come. (That's a borrowing from McBride's own parlance, where "pro-constitutional" equates to "pro-criminal.")
Secondly, while Chapter 980 does not contain criminal statutes per se, you don't get to be a sexually violent person under Chap. 980 unless you've been convicted of a sexually violent offense, a conviction which is, obviously, a criminal conviction. McBride's distinction, in this context, is bordering on the graspingly ridiculous.
Thirdly, if McBride's distinction is accepted, then Gableman can't criticize Butler's record with respect to criminal cases where they involve Chapter 980 commitments, which would pretty much gut the central point of his entire campaign. "Louis Butler, soft on civil commitments!!!1" doesn't play quite as well with the mugs.
If these two examples are any indication of McBride's acumen as a legal analyst generally, I don't see much reason to read further.
* As opposed to civil behavior — :rimshot:
Fraley funnies II
Observant reseacher the Brew City Brawler notes this morning that Republican consultant Brian Fraley, who famously remarked that a certain former employee of the Wisconsin State Public Defender "by choice ... help[ed] a few scumbags get off," once billed the State for more than two grand in legal fees incurred in his own defense.
Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, individual States could print their own currency but lately they raise the dough from the public. The same public, as the Brawler points out, that was paying Fraley's 70K salary when he invoiced them for his defender.
These days Brian Fraley attempts to invoice for "Critical Thinking."
Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, individual States could print their own currency but lately they raise the dough from the public. The same public, as the Brawler points out, that was paying Fraley's 70K salary when he invoiced them for his defender.
These days Brian Fraley attempts to invoice for "Critical Thinking."
March 18, 2008
Interesting.
The ad uses a bit of spin.Just a smidgen, don't you know.
Mike Plaisted appears to be getting his wish, as conservative supporters of Burnett County Judge Mike Gableman, having finally obtained the release of their putative legal counsel, Rick Esenberg of Marquette Law School, step forward in expressing their general indifference to Gableman's new teevee spot.
As for the ad's alleged racist elements, I'm considerably more circumspect than perhaps is Atty. Plaisted. But since he's been following these sorts of things for longer and more closely than I have, he's certainly entitled to his impressions.
Still, one has to wonder, why did Gableman select Reuben Lee Mitchell as the focus of his disgracefully misleading and disingenuous attack against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler?
Gableman, who has been a judge and a prosecutor in two of the most sparsely populated counties in Wisconsin for only a few years, managed to come up with nine "child molesters" to flash on the same screen.
Louis Butler, on the other hand, was a defense attorney and a judge for 25 years in Milwaukee County, population nearly one million. Moreover, Butler's involvement with the Mitchell case was confined to filing an appeal, which he eventually lost.
And, most importantly of all, regardless of the repugnant nature of Mitchell's bad acts, his right to counsel and appeal are guaranteed constitutionally, so to criticize Butler's involvement per se is practically an affront to the American system of democracy.
That would be the same system, incidentally, in which Gableman actively participates and in which Gableman is currently seeking a considerably more enhanced position, for which he claims he is eminently and especially qualified.
(In my view, there's been precious little demonstration in support of that claim but quite a lot to mitigate against it, not the least of which are the relative qualities of the incumbent.)
So, why Reuben Mitchell, in particular, as the deliberate focus of Gableman's blatant fear mongering? That's the question.
Part of the answer, I suspect, is that Gableman's ad is directed not to the voters in metropolitan areas like Madison and Milwaukee, which are predominantly Democratic, and where Gableman likely doesn't stand a chance. Rather, it's aimed at that demographic which, shall we say, doesn't exactly mirror what you'll find along Teutonia Ave.
March 17, 2008
WJCIC statement on Gableman ad
Available here (.pdf; 2 pgs.).
Good and timely thing that conservatives managed to unearth a preacher who said something ridiculous (now that is news!).
One of the (innumerable) funny things about political conservatives, they constantly rag on the "drive-by" media for downplaying important issues, or else emphasizing what conservatives consider irrelevancies.
Yet here they are chomping into and dragging this Jeremiah Wright character around like a pack of rabid, starving pit bull terriers, all the while perfectly content to let Gableman's reprehensible advertisement fester away out there, since whatever positive effect it has for Gableman suits their purposes just fine.
"Gableman's campaign adviser Darrin Schmitz said the ad is factual." Darrin Schmitz wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit him on the ass.
Unbecoming a sitting judge and a candidate for our state's highest court. ... disgraceful and deliberately misleading ... a gross violation of [Gableman's own campaign] pledge. ... Offensive, race-baiting ... contemptible ...Here's the money:
We believe Judge Gableman is deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding this case and Justice Butler’s role in it, and it appears Judge Gableman is doing so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his campaign statements.No wonder Plaisted hears nothing but chirping crickets. Who's going to defend textbook defamation? (Aside from this guy, of course.)
Good and timely thing that conservatives managed to unearth a preacher who said something ridiculous (now that is news!).
One of the (innumerable) funny things about political conservatives, they constantly rag on the "drive-by" media for downplaying important issues, or else emphasizing what conservatives consider irrelevancies.
Yet here they are chomping into and dragging this Jeremiah Wright character around like a pack of rabid, starving pit bull terriers, all the while perfectly content to let Gableman's reprehensible advertisement fester away out there, since whatever positive effect it has for Gableman suits their purposes just fine.
"Gableman's campaign adviser Darrin Schmitz said the ad is factual." Darrin Schmitz wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit him on the ass.
Fraley funnies
I wrote about the near-pathetic adventures of Republican consultant Brian Fraley yesterday. Today, Fraley is back with more priceless consulting, accusing One Wisconsin Now of trying to "intimidate and silence" Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce because OWN's principals set up a website to monitor WMC's political activities.
Is this character for real?
Seriously, a website is going to "intimidate and silence" WMC? I can't even exchange an Al Hamilton for a roll of quarters at M&I Bank to do my laundry without a demand for ID and an account number.
Is this character for real?
Seriously, a website is going to "intimidate and silence" WMC? I can't even exchange an Al Hamilton for a roll of quarters at M&I Bank to do my laundry without a demand for ID and an account number.
Conservative lawyers implicate Gableman
Speaking of Charlie Sykes, I see from one of the blog feeds that he's touting a letter authored by Rick Esenberg of Marquette Law School and a few of his "prominent conservative" friends in support of Wisconsin District II Court of Appeals Judge Lisa Neubauer, who is also running on the April 1 ballot to retain her seat.
Neubauer, like Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, was appointed to the bench by Governor Jim Doyle. Butler's own seat is being challenged by Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman.
Part of the letter contains the following criteria:
Somebody remind me again where much of Gableman's political support is coming from? Oh right, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, with the substantial assistance of Prof. Rick Esenberg.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
Neubauer, like Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, was appointed to the bench by Governor Jim Doyle. Butler's own seat is being challenged by Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman.
Part of the letter contains the following criteria:
Judgment is founded on and requires three distinct and essential qualities:A number of things would seem to indicate that the signatories may have a difficult time rationalizing these essential requirements with any support for Gableman they may express, however implicit.
1. Intelligence - the capacity to truly understand the law.
2. Diligence - a demonstrated willingness to work hard.
3. Integrity - both judicial integrity to follow the law made by others and personal integrity.
Somebody remind me again where much of Gableman's political support is coming from? Oh right, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, with the substantial assistance of Prof. Rick Esenberg.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
The blogfather gets a clue?
A guy on a blog says local conservative radio yelper Charlie Sykes called Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's recent teevee spot "despicable." I'm in no position to verify this because three minutes of Sykes's show was about all I could stand one time.
The blog commenter made this remark last night, but I hear tell from people who monitor Sykes's own teevee spot Sunday Incite — bless their hearts; talk about taking one for the team — that Milwaukee's own King of All Media only made some superficial nod to the campaign advertising generally being "over the line."
Not that I give a rat's left nut what Charlie Sykes thinks or says, but evidently a lot of people do, and if he specifically condemned Gableman's tribute to the State Supreme Court's character and fitness guidelines, then I suppose that might be significant.
Confirm or deny. I know about 450 of Sykes's lemmings invaded this blog one day, so maybe two or three of them are still lurking about.
The blog commenter made this remark last night, but I hear tell from people who monitor Sykes's own teevee spot Sunday Incite — bless their hearts; talk about taking one for the team — that Milwaukee's own King of All Media only made some superficial nod to the campaign advertising generally being "over the line."
Not that I give a rat's left nut what Charlie Sykes thinks or says, but evidently a lot of people do, and if he specifically condemned Gableman's tribute to the State Supreme Court's character and fitness guidelines, then I suppose that might be significant.
Confirm or deny. I know about 450 of Sykes's lemmings invaded this blog one day, so maybe two or three of them are still lurking about.
A Spitzer-take
Oh, I don't know ... even I could endure three days of phony Murdoch moral outrage if the payoff's a topless hooker.
Teh New York Post's Best Weak Evar.
Related: Mrs. Spitzer to blame: Moralist.
Teh New York Post's Best Weak Evar.
Related: Mrs. Spitzer to blame: Moralist.
March 16, 2008
Help control the Burnett County crime wave
And assist us in keeping the Wisconsin District III Court of Appeals docket free of uncontested traffic tickets. To those ends:
Retain Mike Gableman, Burnett County Circuit Court Judge
Not to appear as a mutual admiration society or anything (because the linked post contains its own link to this here blog) but Sam Sarver at Brazen Maverick made an excellent point this morning:
I still can't get over that. Can you imagine, a self-respecting circuit court judge claiming to have "presided over" uncontested traffic tickets, and then actually counting them towards his calculated percentage of getting upheld versus getting reversed on appeal. It's astounding, truly. I can't possibly be the only one laughing.
Come to think of it, make that two excellent points:
Mr. Sarver maintains an exemplary blog, and if he keeps being good, maybe the Brawler and me will let him buy us a drink sometime.
Retain Mike Gableman, Burnett County Circuit Court Judge
Not to appear as a mutual admiration society or anything (because the linked post contains its own link to this here blog) but Sam Sarver at Brazen Maverick made an excellent point this morning:
If Gableman is so good at putting criminals behind bars, why not leave him at his seat in the circuit court, where he can keep putting away bad dudes?Not to mention "presiding over" 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets. Gableman Fun Fact: Did you know, not a one of those 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets was reversed on appeal!
I still can't get over that. Can you imagine, a self-respecting circuit court judge claiming to have "presided over" uncontested traffic tickets, and then actually counting them towards his calculated percentage of getting upheld versus getting reversed on appeal. It's astounding, truly. I can't possibly be the only one laughing.
Come to think of it, make that two excellent points:
That way, he wouldn't have to deal with all the nuance and subtlety of the State Supreme Court, for which he obviously lacks sufficient patience.It's my distinct impression that that ain't all he lacks.
Mr. Sarver maintains an exemplary blog, and if he keeps being good, maybe the Brawler and me will let him buy us a drink sometime.
The lamest Gableman defense yet
An intrepid soul has ventured bravely forth in defense of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's freshly minted television ad which, as has been already observed, distorts reality in several decidedly reprehensible manners.
The said brave soul, Republican consultant Brian Fraley, helpfully informs us that "Louis Butler WAS, by choice, a public defender for many years and it looks like he did help a few scumbags get off."
Yes, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was a public defender 20 years ago. Thanks for that blinding glimpse of the obvious, and also for the absurd suggestion that there's something wrong with being one (the right to criminal defense counsel is explicitly guaranteed by the United States Constitution).
So Fraley thinks "it looks like" Louis Butler had some success as an attorney. Let's hope he did! I'm not aware of anyone who attended law school with a view to being a failure.
But does Fraley have any examples? Well, no. Only the so-called example contained in Gableman's ad, a case Butler had relatively little to do with. Butler was not even the defendant's lawyer during the initial proceedings. Butler filed an appeal of the original conviction, which was his job at the time, and won on a question of whether some evidence was legally admissible at trial.
However, Butler's efforts were ultimately for naught, because although the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed the evidence in question was tainted, it found its effect on the jury was not prejudicial, and therefore upheld Reuben Lee Mitchell's conviction. That Mitchell served his initial sentence and then went on to re-offend had absolutely nothing to do with Louis Butler. Nothing.
Maybe Fraley doesn't know it, but there are laws in this country that govern what sort of testimony and evidence may be presented in court. It doesn't matter whether the defendant is an alleged child rapist or a homeless man who stole some loaves of bread from Panera's corporate headquarters. The principles are the same.
So Butler wasn't "working to put Reuben Lee Mitchell on the street," he was working to ensure another of Mitchell's constitutional rights, the one to a fair trial. Fraley and anyone else foolish enough to defend Gableman's teevee ad should take a look at the Bill of Rights sometime. They might be amazed at the number of protections that are extended to criminal defendants, let alone the panoply of more specific guarantees that arise from the Constitution's broad strokes.
And the public defender exists because the government has a lot of resources that the accused often doesn't have. The Framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, knew this. But it would be unfair to cast Brian Fraley's understanding against that of, for example, James Madison, since few minds compare favorably with the latter's.
Next, quoting from some campaign propaganda received from the lovely and talented Gableman mouthpiece Darrin Schmitz, Fraley reminds us, in yet another glaring obviousness, that the public record is "fair game" and, by golly, even Louis Butler said so himself.
Well of course the public record itself is "fair game." But is it fair game to manipulate, distort, and constructively lie about the public record itself? Wouldn't that be the polar opposite of "fair game"? Why, yes, yes it would.
And that, believe it or not, is the entire substance of professional Republican consultant Brian Fraley's defense of Michael Gableman's disgraceful attack performance. One wonders why he decided to publish it in the first place. Far from being a defense, it's more like an expression of helpless embarrassment. And if that was not the intent, it certainly is the result.
The sole saving grace is that Fraley provided his sparkling analysis for free on the internets. Because in a more professional set of circumstances, Fraley's consulting firm, The Markesan Group, advertises first and foremost "Critical Thinking" services. Apparently you have to pay him for that. I sure as hell hope it's cheap, but not quite as cheap as Gableman's electoral strategy.
One thing is undeniable: Justice Louis Butler, in his constitutionally mandated former role, was a far more effective defender of the accused than is Brian Fraley of Mike Gableman's deliberate rubbish in his own present role as lame-o Republican apologist.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
The said brave soul, Republican consultant Brian Fraley, helpfully informs us that "Louis Butler WAS, by choice, a public defender for many years and it looks like he did help a few scumbags get off."
Yes, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was a public defender 20 years ago. Thanks for that blinding glimpse of the obvious, and also for the absurd suggestion that there's something wrong with being one (the right to criminal defense counsel is explicitly guaranteed by the United States Constitution).
So Fraley thinks "it looks like" Louis Butler had some success as an attorney. Let's hope he did! I'm not aware of anyone who attended law school with a view to being a failure.
But does Fraley have any examples? Well, no. Only the so-called example contained in Gableman's ad, a case Butler had relatively little to do with. Butler was not even the defendant's lawyer during the initial proceedings. Butler filed an appeal of the original conviction, which was his job at the time, and won on a question of whether some evidence was legally admissible at trial.
However, Butler's efforts were ultimately for naught, because although the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed the evidence in question was tainted, it found its effect on the jury was not prejudicial, and therefore upheld Reuben Lee Mitchell's conviction. That Mitchell served his initial sentence and then went on to re-offend had absolutely nothing to do with Louis Butler. Nothing.
Maybe Fraley doesn't know it, but there are laws in this country that govern what sort of testimony and evidence may be presented in court. It doesn't matter whether the defendant is an alleged child rapist or a homeless man who stole some loaves of bread from Panera's corporate headquarters. The principles are the same.
So Butler wasn't "working to put Reuben Lee Mitchell on the street," he was working to ensure another of Mitchell's constitutional rights, the one to a fair trial. Fraley and anyone else foolish enough to defend Gableman's teevee ad should take a look at the Bill of Rights sometime. They might be amazed at the number of protections that are extended to criminal defendants, let alone the panoply of more specific guarantees that arise from the Constitution's broad strokes.
And the public defender exists because the government has a lot of resources that the accused often doesn't have. The Framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, knew this. But it would be unfair to cast Brian Fraley's understanding against that of, for example, James Madison, since few minds compare favorably with the latter's.
Next, quoting from some campaign propaganda received from the lovely and talented Gableman mouthpiece Darrin Schmitz, Fraley reminds us, in yet another glaring obviousness, that the public record is "fair game" and, by golly, even Louis Butler said so himself.
Well of course the public record itself is "fair game." But is it fair game to manipulate, distort, and constructively lie about the public record itself? Wouldn't that be the polar opposite of "fair game"? Why, yes, yes it would.
And that, believe it or not, is the entire substance of professional Republican consultant Brian Fraley's defense of Michael Gableman's disgraceful attack performance. One wonders why he decided to publish it in the first place. Far from being a defense, it's more like an expression of helpless embarrassment. And if that was not the intent, it certainly is the result.
The sole saving grace is that Fraley provided his sparkling analysis for free on the internets. Because in a more professional set of circumstances, Fraley's consulting firm, The Markesan Group, advertises first and foremost "Critical Thinking" services. Apparently you have to pay him for that. I sure as hell hope it's cheap, but not quite as cheap as Gableman's electoral strategy.
One thing is undeniable: Justice Louis Butler, in his constitutionally mandated former role, was a far more effective defender of the accused than is Brian Fraley of Mike Gableman's deliberate rubbish in his own present role as lame-o Republican apologist.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
Night of broken ass
Via The Chief, the carefully considered backwoods northwoods conservative Republican view of Barack Obama:
Who knew Mein Kampf was about dressing oneself.
Obama keeps saying that he wants change but he will not say what the change is.That is by way of — get this — "educating people." The Chief responds appropriately here. Jesse Seymour's favorite book is Harry Potter, so perhaps he is using magickal powerz and crystal ballin' Obama's crimes against humanity. But in the meantime, you want a crime against humanity, check out Seymour's jacket-shirt-tie combo.
In 1933 Germany had a major change in government. We all know how that story ended.
Who knew Mein Kampf was about dressing oneself.
March 15, 2008
Plaisted on Gableman
As usual, learned counsel Mike Plaisted minces no words and pulls no punches. As for Janine Geske's quote carried by the AP report, Plaisted's wish to disassociate "we" from "us" is well taken, and I almost said exactly the same thing last night as a small caveat to endorsing Justice Geske's assessment in full.
But I refrained because Geske, in giving impressive effect to why she is one of the most respected lawyers in the State, is lamenting the fact that Gableman himself is a Wisconsin attorney and judge, yet he is engaging in this appalling conduct, and it brings dishonor on the entire profession. We are all tarnished by it, and in some sense we are responsible, or at least responsible for correcting it.
If there really is any justice, then this manifestly disgraceful advertisement should sink Michael Gableman's misbegotten and misguided quest for the Wisconsin Supreme Court once and for all, and right this instant. Because he clearly has no business there.
And if I was a full-on supporter of general elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices (I'm ambivalent), I'd be cringing at this latest revealing of Gableman's odious strategy.
Alternatively, if I supported those general elections and was a Gableman surrogate or supporter, I could understand perfectly well why a merit-based appointment system would be so distasteful.
Because this man wouldn't stand a chance.
But I refrained because Geske, in giving impressive effect to why she is one of the most respected lawyers in the State, is lamenting the fact that Gableman himself is a Wisconsin attorney and judge, yet he is engaging in this appalling conduct, and it brings dishonor on the entire profession. We are all tarnished by it, and in some sense we are responsible, or at least responsible for correcting it.
If there really is any justice, then this manifestly disgraceful advertisement should sink Michael Gableman's misbegotten and misguided quest for the Wisconsin Supreme Court once and for all, and right this instant. Because he clearly has no business there.
And if I was a full-on supporter of general elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices (I'm ambivalent), I'd be cringing at this latest revealing of Gableman's odious strategy.
Alternatively, if I supported those general elections and was a Gableman surrogate or supporter, I could understand perfectly well why a merit-based appointment system would be so distasteful.
Because this man wouldn't stand a chance.
Beware the IDiots of March
The religiously tinged evolution-questioning theory of Intelligent Design could more easily be brought up in public-school science classrooms under a proposed "academic freedom" legislation being pushed by conservative lawmakers.Read the complete article in the Miami Herald.
A leading voice for the Intelligent Design movement acknowledged as much Wednesday by saying that the theory constitutes "scientific information," which the bill expressly and repeatedly says teachers should present in questioning and criticizing evolution without fear of persecution.
The remarks by Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, were made during a press conference with actor-columnist-speechwriter-gameshow host [-IDiot] Ben Stein, who's exhibiting a documentary in support of the legislation.
As the mighty Wesley Elsberry correctly observes,
The only reason the Discovery Institute makes a big deal about not "mandating" instruction in “intelligent design” creationism (IDC) is that a law doing so could be challenged immediately without waiting for it to actually affect a classroom. * * *Sneaky bastards they are.
The falsely so-called "academic freedom" bills aim to maximize the proportion of teachers that will participate in the Discovery Institute miseducation scheme and to extend the strategy to also recruit children into being as disruptive as possible whenever evolutionary science is a topic in a classroom.
March 14, 2008
Who are those child molesters?
Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's campaign ad released today features a sequence of nine photos, over the title and the narration, "Putting child molesters behind bars for over 100 years."
Setting aside the ludicrous grammar (Gableman is only 41), the sixth in the series appears to be Larry J. "Cowboy" Livingston, who pleaded guilty to First Degree Sexual Assault of a Child, a Class B felony that carries a potential prison term of 40 years (plus 20 years extended supervision).
Livingston was sentenced by tough-on-crime Judge Gableman on January 26, 2005, to three years in prison and two years extended supervision. Livingston is out of prison now, and living in Danbury, WI. That's eight child molesters and 97 years to go.
There are not a lot of registered sex offenders from Burnett County who've been sentenced during Gableman's tenure for crimes that could be considered child molesting. Hopefully Gableman's campaign will identify the individuals depicted and their whereabouts.
Setting aside the ludicrous grammar (Gableman is only 41), the sixth in the series appears to be Larry J. "Cowboy" Livingston, who pleaded guilty to First Degree Sexual Assault of a Child, a Class B felony that carries a potential prison term of 40 years (plus 20 years extended supervision).
Livingston was sentenced by tough-on-crime Judge Gableman on January 26, 2005, to three years in prison and two years extended supervision. Livingston is out of prison now, and living in Danbury, WI. That's eight child molesters and 97 years to go.
There are not a lot of registered sex offenders from Burnett County who've been sentenced during Gableman's tenure for crimes that could be considered child molesting. Hopefully Gableman's campaign will identify the individuals depicted and their whereabouts.
You stay classy, Mike Gableman
From the Associated Press:
Watch Gableman's class act at this link (.wmv; 31 secs.).
But give Gableman some credit for the opening sequence:
A new television ad in the state Supreme Court race misleads the public about Justice Louis Butler's role in defending a man accused of rape in 1984 when he was a defense lawyer. . . .Word, Sister.
"The ad seems to say he got him off. For God sakes [sic], that's terrible," said [former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice and Dean of Marquette Law School Janine] Geske. "This ad is awful on so many levels, from misportraying the role of the Supreme Court, misportraying the role of the public defender, appealing to the fear of citizens. We're sinking to new lows."
Watch Gableman's class act at this link (.wmv; 31 secs.).
But give Gableman some credit for the opening sequence:
Unbelievable. It's not true!At least he got that part right.
Bush totally gay for war
If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. — President George W. Bush, 3/13/08As for me, "I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused," as the song goes, but I can certainly imagine many people being profoundly revolted by Bush's paean to "romanticism."
Vietnam veterans, for example, survivors of that conflict which was either too romantic or not romantic enough for Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the current cheerleaders and war profiteers who managed to avoid assignment to Southeast Asia in their salad days thanks to, in Limbaugh's case, a romantic boil on his big fat idiotic ass.
An astute observer reminds us that last April, First Lady Laura Bush thoughtfully informed the country that, "No one suffers more than the President and I do." No one.
That would exclude the bereaved families of both Americans and Iraqis, as well as the thousands returning home without legs, eyesight, or other essentials. Quite romantic, I'm sure all that must be. One is nearly inspired to compose a dainty verse to a flower.
"If I were not employed here ..."
A 'mission accomplished' that can't happen soon enough.
Mrs. Spitzer to blame: Moralist
Professional self-appointed moralist and scold "Dr." Laura Schlessinger tells NBC's The Today Show that Silda Wall Spitzer, the better half of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, drove the hubster to expensive extracurricular horizontal mambo-ing by failing to sufficiently submit to Eliot's connubial requirements:
* NSFW, unless you work for Vivid Video or Congress.
When the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he’s very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs.Schlessinger, an Old Testament religious conservative who earned her degree in physiology by methodically picking the legs off of insects, can be viewed catering to a former boyfriend's needs and feelings, complete with 70s porn-bush beaver shots, at this link.*
* NSFW, unless you work for Vivid Video or Congress.
Preachers gone wild
The latest right-wing consternation has to do with a fellow called Jeremiah Wright, who, they say, is Senator Barack Obama's "pastor." Some teevee clips have surfaced featuring Wright articulating radical politics and fulminating against social injustice in America.
The nut-wings are falling all over themselves insisting that Obama denounce Wright and all his works, because he spoke ill of the Bush administration's domestic policy, and we certainly can't have that.
Less consternation has been voiced over Obama's Republican presidential rival and fellow U.S. Senator, John McCain. McCain has lately been cavorting with John Hagee, a Grade-A delusional fundamentalist fruitcake and more recently yet another, Rod Parsley.
Parsley, who McCain describes as his "spiritual guide," raves and rants about Islam and calls on his fellow Christians to wage war against the competing Abrahamic religion, which he claims is "false." Few things are as ridiculous and amusing as one purveyor of superstition declaring it a better superstition than some other.
The Republican propensity for presidential "spiritual guides" dates back at least to the sainted Ronald Reagan, who consulted astrologers, Biblical prophecy, and other styles of necromancy to determine foreign policy.
Why is anybody surprised by preachers talking nonsense? Talking nonsense is what they do for a living. People should be more concerned about presidents and presidential candidates retaining "spiritual guides," if you ask me. That's what's disturbing.
This country was founded on principles of reason during the Age of Enlightenment. Why drag it back into the dark ages now.
The nut-wings are falling all over themselves insisting that Obama denounce Wright and all his works, because he spoke ill of the Bush administration's domestic policy, and we certainly can't have that.
Less consternation has been voiced over Obama's Republican presidential rival and fellow U.S. Senator, John McCain. McCain has lately been cavorting with John Hagee, a Grade-A delusional fundamentalist fruitcake and more recently yet another, Rod Parsley.
Parsley, who McCain describes as his "spiritual guide," raves and rants about Islam and calls on his fellow Christians to wage war against the competing Abrahamic religion, which he claims is "false." Few things are as ridiculous and amusing as one purveyor of superstition declaring it a better superstition than some other.
The Republican propensity for presidential "spiritual guides" dates back at least to the sainted Ronald Reagan, who consulted astrologers, Biblical prophecy, and other styles of necromancy to determine foreign policy.
Why is anybody surprised by preachers talking nonsense? Talking nonsense is what they do for a living. People should be more concerned about presidents and presidential candidates retaining "spiritual guides," if you ask me. That's what's disturbing.
This country was founded on principles of reason during the Age of Enlightenment. Why drag it back into the dark ages now.
March 13, 2008
Unlawful Purposes, LLC
I wonder if anyone's sued the State of Wisconsin* on a First Amendment theory for not allowing them to use that as their corporate name. Good name for a blog, anyway. If anyone's interested, help yourself, but put me on your blogroll.
* For unlawful porpoises, see Fla. Stat. § 370.12 (2003).
* For unlawful porpoises, see Fla. Stat. § 370.12 (2003).
Burnett County: Litigation hell
Gableman upheld on 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets
Better record than the Ninth Circus, says StopTheACLU.com
Darrin Schmitz, the professional Republican "persuader" who is coordinating the election campaign of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman, tells us that Gableman has "presided over" 23,545 cases. He uses this figure to compare against Gableman's reversals on appeal, and calculates the judge's reversal rate thereby at .02%
During the calendar years 2003-2007 inclusive, for example, the Burnett County (pop. 16,595) Circuit Court disposed of 8,800 uncontested traffic tickets. Is Gableman seriously counting uncontested traffic tickets to calculate his reversal rate?
Because when you're calculating a judge's relative success on appeal, you probably don't get to include for uncontested traffic tickets, the statistical likelihood of whose appeal approaches roughly zilch.
It's also a rather unusual method of response to someone else's calculation of your man's reversal rate that you feel is unfair. It's especially unusual in light of Gableman's own portrayal of Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler's record:
All of which is made the more amusing by Schmitz's self-righteous railing about 'outright lies' and 'patent and demonstrative falsehoods.' Because if Schmitz is using uncontested traffic tickets to arrive at Gableman's advertised reversal rate on appeal of .02%, then it seems to me he's made a demonstrable falsehood of his own right there.
What's particularly significant, however, is that Darrin "The GOP Persuader" Schmitz is howling against a third-party interest group, which even Justice Butler has denounced, whereas Schmitz's data is issuing directly from the Gableman campaign itself.
Better record than the Ninth Circus, says StopTheACLU.com
Darrin Schmitz, the professional Republican "persuader" who is coordinating the election campaign of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman, tells us that Gableman has "presided over" 23,545 cases. He uses this figure to compare against Gableman's reversals on appeal, and calculates the judge's reversal rate thereby at .02%
During the calendar years 2003-2007 inclusive, for example, the Burnett County (pop. 16,595) Circuit Court disposed of 8,800 uncontested traffic tickets. Is Gableman seriously counting uncontested traffic tickets to calculate his reversal rate?
Because when you're calculating a judge's relative success on appeal, you probably don't get to include for uncontested traffic tickets, the statistical likelihood of whose appeal approaches roughly zilch.
It's also a rather unusual method of response to someone else's calculation of your man's reversal rate that you feel is unfair. It's especially unusual in light of Gableman's own portrayal of Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler's record:
Gableman said the [sided with criminals] 60% [of the time] figure came from a study by an outside group.Good thing he's not running for State mathematician.
"I don't know if the number is 30%, 60%, 80%, or 90%," [Gableman] said, before adding, "I'm unaware of any study that contradicts those numbers."
All of which is made the more amusing by Schmitz's self-righteous railing about 'outright lies' and 'patent and demonstrative falsehoods.' Because if Schmitz is using uncontested traffic tickets to arrive at Gableman's advertised reversal rate on appeal of .02%, then it seems to me he's made a demonstrable falsehood of his own right there.
What's particularly significant, however, is that Darrin "The GOP Persuader" Schmitz is howling against a third-party interest group, which even Justice Butler has denounced, whereas Schmitz's data is issuing directly from the Gableman campaign itself.
March 12, 2008
Gableman up close and personal
Courtesy of Milwaukee Atty. Mike Plaisted, who attended the Bar Association event this afternoon:
It's disgraceful, is what it is.
During the whole forum, Justice Butler tried to draw Gableman out on what exactly is wrong with the decisions of the Court that have provided false fodder for Gableman and his third-party handlers. For instance, in the Brown case (the sexual predator that didn’t get released, although the Farrow/Gableman fundraising letter said he did), how would Gableman have ruled differently and how would he have ignored state statutes to get there? In the Jensen case, would Gableman have joined the majority in making up new law out of whole cloth to get to the desired result? How and by what analysis, Butler wanted to know, would Gableman "legislate from the bench" to reach his desired result?Not a word of this surprises me. Although I would additionally argue that in this election campaign, presenting the results without having done the analysis is per se mispresentation and moreover, deliberate misrepresentation because those results are intentionally portrayed in the worst possible light, in ignorance of the case analysis.
Gableman ignored all this, of course — the law and legal reasoning being, apparently, for suckers. * * *
After an hour of banging his head against this wall, Butler said that either Gableman hasn’t done the analysis or he is deliberately misrepresenting the results. Here’s one vote for him never bothering with doing the analysis. Mike Gableman is not someone to let himself get confused by the facts. Or the law, for that matter.
It's disgraceful, is what it is.
Gableman v. Numbers
I sincerely hope something got lost in the translation here, but the Journal-Sentinel's Greg Borowski tells of a candidates' encounter at the Milwaukee Bar Association today, where Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman reportedly said the following:
In other words, his unawareness evidently extends to the whole shootin' match. How exactly is this person qualified for the State Supreme Court? I've not seen even a remote inkling of a good reason, but there sure are a whole hell of a lot of really bad ones.
h/t capper.
[Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis] Butler pointed to Gableman's statements that Butler has sided with criminals 60% of the time. Butler said he had reviewed all the cases since he joined the bench, and found he upheld criminal convictions 75% of the time.Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?
The percentage would be higher, he said, if appeals not accepted for review had been included.
Gableman said the 60% figure came from a study by an outside group.
"I don't know if the number is 30%, 60%, 80%, or 90%," he said, before adding, "I'm unaware of any study that contradicts those numbers."
In other words, his unawareness evidently extends to the whole shootin' match. How exactly is this person qualified for the State Supreme Court? I've not seen even a remote inkling of a good reason, but there sure are a whole hell of a lot of really bad ones.
h/t capper.
A message to you, rude boy
My buddy and fellow discerning musicologist the Brew City Brawler this morning links to a live version of Concrete Jungle by The Specials, one of my favorite bands.The Specials were the best of a number of British Ska outfits that flourished in the early 80s. They put out two excellent albums, a self-titled debut followed by More Specials, and a bunch of singles before splitting up and pursuing a number of individual projects.
The Specials, which is one of the greatest party records ever made, was produced by Elvis Costello, production which, according to one of the band members, consisted mostly of EC's laying under the mixing board with a bottle of vodka.* (EC will be back in Milwaukee this summer opening for The Police, which is a bit surprising because he once opined that Sting should be beaten about the head and shoulders for 'singing with that ridiculous fake Jamaican accent.')
All of which reminds me of my own Specials story. Several years ago when I was in London I learned that another of my musical heroes, the legendary and reclusive Mancunian "punk poet" John Cooper Clarke, was appearing at a pub in Camden Town. Clarke was opening for a band I'd never heard of, but was advertised as comprised of former members of The Specials and their erstwhile 2 Tone label mates Madness and The Selecter.
I was in the neighborhood already so I headed to the pub early with a few newspapers and found a comfortable spot at a picnic table outside the establishment. In due course a bunch of people came along and asked me whether anyone else was sitting at the table. Nope, I said, help yourself, which they did, and proceeded to animated conversation.
I don't normally eavesdrop, but it soon became apparent that these folks were the headliner that evening. A bit later, I found myself in the men's loo having a slash beside one of them, and I asked him which of the 2 Tone bands he was previously a part of. Turns out he was John Bradbury, The Specials' drummer. One of the most — if not the most — distinctive features of The Specials' first record is the drumming; just the sound of the snare drum is fabulous.
"Holy shit," I said, "You're the guy who played drums on Monkey Man? That is one of the finest performances evar!" So we all ended up having a hell of a time back at the picnic table, involving numerous pints of lager, bitter, and Guinness, and packets of crisps. Eventually they invited me inside for their sound check, where I insisted on more high end for the snare drum. We got it down perfect.
After all that was done, who should amble past my table but John Cooper Clarke. He's easy to spot because he's a little guy with a hairdo about seven feet in circumference. "Johnny Clarke!" He sits down and we shoot the breeze for about an hour, him amazed (and flattered) that here's this character from across the pond that can recite The Ghost of Al Capone in its entirety.
Paralysed in precious stoneHe even came back to continue the conversation after performing his hilarious and ingenious schtick, but the said conviviality was soon interrupted — enhanced, in Clarke's case, as it turns out — by a slightly inebriated and obviously enamored young woman, who helped herself to a seat on Mr. Clarke's lap. They disappeared together shortly thereafter, Clarke waving a bemused farewell to me.
Canonized - I stand alone
In the clouds of paradise - my home
A million orchids deck the throne
Of the man who numbered Al Capone
The man who numbered all his bones
In short, a splendid time was had by all.
* On further reflection, I believe this may have actually been Shane McGowan's characterization of EC's labors pursuant to the production of The Pogues' second record, Rum, Sodomy & The Lash.
March 10, 2008
More Gableman campaign irony
WISC-TV in Madison won't broadcast a pro-Michael Gableman advertising spot produced by an outfit called the Coalition for America's Families. For why? Because it's gruesome and might affect the families of the parties involved in the case. The Coalition already had problems with the ad in Green Bay because it contained potentially defamatory language. What a circus.Source: Armstrong ad won't run.
March 9, 2008
Certainly not by reason alone
A "right-wing Christian" offers the following meditation this morning:
Among the stranger interpretations of Christian doctrine is the one whereby the adepts are "saved by faith alone" as opposed to by works, which Jesus tends to downplay, since they lead a man to boast (as if an omniscient being wouldn't be hip to the motivation).
The potential conclusion to all this, of course, is that the Memphis man, by means of the appropriate expressions of faith, winds up frolicking gaily on the Elysian Fields while those of us not accepting Christ as our personal Saviour — for whatever reason — find ourselves writhing in perpetual agony on the eternal rotisserie no matter our positive attributes (such as a commendable facility in resisting urges to shoot and stab other people to death).
Apparently this is justice from an inspired perspective.
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. — 2 Timothy 1:9Only hours ago, the same penitent described a Memphis man whose works include allegedly shooting and stabbing six people to death as a "piece of trash" and "garbage" who deserves to be put to his own expedited death by the government.
Among the stranger interpretations of Christian doctrine is the one whereby the adepts are "saved by faith alone" as opposed to by works, which Jesus tends to downplay, since they lead a man to boast (as if an omniscient being wouldn't be hip to the motivation).
The potential conclusion to all this, of course, is that the Memphis man, by means of the appropriate expressions of faith, winds up frolicking gaily on the Elysian Fields while those of us not accepting Christ as our personal Saviour — for whatever reason — find ourselves writhing in perpetual agony on the eternal rotisserie no matter our positive attributes (such as a commendable facility in resisting urges to shoot and stab other people to death).
Apparently this is justice from an inspired perspective.
A Wisconsin birthday
LA County deputy DA Marcia Clark asks professional houseguest Brian "Kato" Kaelin about a trip to McDonald's in O.J. Simpson's Rolls Royce,* and Kato answers in the form of a question, March 22, 1995:
* Kaelin thought it was a Rolls Royce, but it was a Bentley.
Q. He seem real excited to have you come?Kato Kaelin was born in Milwaukee on this day in 1959.
A. Wouldn't you?
* Kaelin thought it was a Rolls Royce, but it was a Bentley.
Your daily irony
If you spend all of your time and resources responding to these negative, slimy attacks, you're not doing the best job you can in terms of delivering your own positive message.
— Republican "Persuader" Darrin Schmitz
March 8, 2008
Milwaukee's loss
Is Philadelphia's gain:
It's fortunate for Mr. Nunnally, I assume, but it's a drag for us. He did a fine job, was comprehensive in his coverage, and always wrote with wit and style. Good luck to Derrick in Philly, which has more crime, but less Mike McGee.
Please excuse The Docket's unexplained recent hiatus. Chief blogger Derrick Nunnally has moved on to report for the Philadephia Inquirer, but we will try to continue highlighting items you've come to look for here.That's from yesterday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Proof & Hearsay weblog, which covers the courts.
It's fortunate for Mr. Nunnally, I assume, but it's a drag for us. He did a fine job, was comprehensive in his coverage, and always wrote with wit and style. Good luck to Derrick in Philly, which has more crime, but less Mike McGee.
How readest thou the law?
Four years ago Victor DeLeon of Texas died following a loud thump. The said concussion was caused by his unfortunate contact with Lorena Guerra's Ford Expedition, which was observed moving away from the scene at a high rate of speed. Ms. Guerra was charged and convicted under Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.023, a "Good Samaritan" law which imposes the duty to stop and render aid.
Ms. Guerra appealed her judgment of conviction on a number of grounds, including an asserted fundamental constitutional right "to be left alone" and the claim that § 550.023 impermissibly codified Christian doctrine in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause.
As to the former, the appeals court reasoned, "Taken to its logical conclusion, Guerra is asserting a fundamental right to hit someone with her vehicle and not stop and provide any assistance to the victim." Because it could find no textual or other support for this proposition — not even in Ms. Guerra's own presentations — the court rejected that claim.
Ms. Guerra's Establishment Clause argument consisted of portraying
§ 550.023 as “imposing Christian conduct, custom, philosophy and principles to all drivers." The court similarly found this claim to be without merit, because laws do not respect an establishment of religion when they simply happen to coincide with religious beliefs.
Which just goes to show you, religion has no monopoly on good conduct, not even in Texas. Guerra v. State.
h/t Prof. Friedman.
Ms. Guerra appealed her judgment of conviction on a number of grounds, including an asserted fundamental constitutional right "to be left alone" and the claim that § 550.023 impermissibly codified Christian doctrine in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause.
As to the former, the appeals court reasoned, "Taken to its logical conclusion, Guerra is asserting a fundamental right to hit someone with her vehicle and not stop and provide any assistance to the victim." Because it could find no textual or other support for this proposition — not even in Ms. Guerra's own presentations — the court rejected that claim.
Ms. Guerra's Establishment Clause argument consisted of portraying
§ 550.023 as “imposing Christian conduct, custom, philosophy and principles to all drivers." The court similarly found this claim to be without merit, because laws do not respect an establishment of religion when they simply happen to coincide with religious beliefs.
Which just goes to show you, religion has no monopoly on good conduct, not even in Texas. Guerra v. State.
h/t Prof. Friedman.
March 7, 2008
Gableman surrogates: None too bright
When criticizing a judge for overturning a criminal conviction, you don't get to simultaneously re-convict the defendant of committing the crimes for which the conviction was overturned. Because that's what's known in the trade as defamation. Not to mention stupidity.Group revises Supreme Court ad after station pulls it
The Coalition for America's Families revised the wording Friday afternoon to say Armstrong had once been convicted of rape and murder.D'oh. Fortunately stupidity isn't actionable, generally. Yes, yes, Kent Hovind is in federal prison, but that's for income tax evasion.
(Ever notice how these outfits with "family" in the title are often shameless dissemblers of the lowest order? I sure have.)
And in other GOP family values news:
Prosecutors have refiled child enticement charges against the former head of the Brown County Republican Party.Green Bay (WI) Press Gazette.
Donald Fleischman, 37, of Allouez, who resigned his post with the Brown County Republicans in September, is accused of fondling a 16-year-old runaway and providing the boy with beer and marijuana late last year.
Wait, wait, don't tell me — Louis Butler's going to singlehandedly release him into Milwaukee County.
eta: Frederica Freyberg's interview this evening with Michael Gableman is available for viewing at this link.
A note to Ms. Freyberg: The defamation contemplated by WBAY attorneys in the Coalition for America's Families teevee spot was not against Justice Butler, but rather against the defendant whose conviction was overturned.
More noteworthy is Gableman's seemingly tempering his previous claims that his judicial decision making will be in "stark contrast" to Justice Butler's. Too much like a promise, perhaps?
Now he is merely pointing out that his career background as a lawyer for the State is a "stark contrast" to Butler's experience in criminal defense (prior to Butler's 17 years as a judge, that is, which happens to be longer than Gableman has been practicing law in total).
Less significant, athough significant nonetheless, was Gableman's apparent failure to observe the potentially defamatory nature of the Coalition for America's Families advertisement, despite admitting he'd watched it just before coming on Ms. Freyberg's programme.
You'd think convicting someone of a crime whose conviction had been overturned (the whole point of the ad) would raise a big red flag for a judge, especially one so qualified for the State Supreme Court.
March 6, 2008
WISC fisks a Gableman spot
Madison's CBS teevee affiliate, WISC, takes a look at a pro-Michael Gableman spot produced by the conservative Club For Growth:
Not knowing the details, Gableman may have accepted a misdemeanor guilty plea rather than pursuing a felony conviction at trial in order to, for example, protect a child victim from testifying under cross examination, often not a pretty sight.
Also, "countless" = 23.
"Criminals threaten our communities. Oddly enough, so do some judges who return them to the street," the ad says. "But not Judge Michael Gableman. He's a former prosecutor who has gone toe to toe with the arsonists, sexual predators, domestic abusers and white-collar criminals who belong in jail."Tough on crime? Since when did conservatives consider prosecutors bargaining felonies (more than a year in State prison) down to misdemeanors (less than a year in county jail) tough on crime?
A closer look at Gableman's record shows limited experience in these types of cases. Gableman was the district attorney in Ashland County from 1999 to 2002. He only prosecuted one arson case, which was ordered an acquittal.
In 19 felony child abuse cases, three were dismissed, 13 pleaded out to misdemeanor crimes, two were found not guilty at trial and only one was sentenced to prison time.
In felony sexual assault of children cases, Gableman got 11 convictions out of 31 cases, and 15 cases were pleaded to misdemeanors.
Not knowing the details, Gableman may have accepted a misdemeanor guilty plea rather than pursuing a felony conviction at trial in order to, for example, protect a child victim from testifying under cross examination, often not a pretty sight.
The focus on criminal cases in the ad mischaracterizes the job of a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court decides constitutional questions, and it doesn't hand out sentences like a Circuit Court.Isn't that cute, misrepresenting the very job you're presenting your man as eminently qualified for (while sales-puffing his experience).
Also, "countless" = 23.
Waterlogged straw man sinks in think tank
A man in a "think tank" opines, purportedly in addressing supporters of appointing — rather than electing — State Supreme Court Justices:
While truly impartial justice may be an unattainable ideal, it's an ideal nonetheless, and ideals are not so easily discarded by people clutching soggy straw men in so-called think tanks.
(Hey, at least Patrick McIlheran is impressed.)
The conceit inherent in their position lies with their elevated view of the Supreme Court. Supporters of appointed judges apparently believe in the concept of "judicial supremacy," which gives the Court heightened importance over the other two branches of state government.Um, no. It has to do with the unique role of judges compared to politicians bought and paid for by interest groups, not their "heightened" or "supremist" role. But thanks for coming out.
While truly impartial justice may be an unattainable ideal, it's an ideal nonetheless, and ideals are not so easily discarded by people clutching soggy straw men in so-called think tanks.
(Hey, at least Patrick McIlheran is impressed.)
Gableman's distinguished service
There was an interesting editorial the other day in the Dunn County News dealing with the Butler/Gableman campaign, and in particular criticisms leveled at Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Butler by challenger Michael Gableman and his surrogates and supporters. The editorialist(s) write:
During it, Gableman repeatedly and baselessly derided Butler for grounding judicial opinions in the latter's "personal sympathies or feelings." Even the more sensible Butler critics, such as Marquette Law School's Rick Esenberg, will tell you that the results Gableman has in mind are defensible according to legal rationales. But Gableman's foolish and insulting characterizations are not.
The State Bar is hosting a formal debate between the candidates in Madison on March 25, and I sincerely hope someone gets up and expressly challenges Gableman on his evidence-free assertions. If Gableman is any kind of judge at all, he would never let a lawyer get away with comparable claims during, for example, a trial. And this campaign is essentially Gableman's own trial.
So somebody please put him on cross (without putting him on a cross; that only feeds the conservative persecution complex).
Meanwhile, the diligent investigators at One Wisconsin Now have uncovered more fascinating tidbits pursuant to what they call "Gableman's Suspicious Appointment" to his current Burnett County judgeship. The appointment, which was made by former Republican Governor Scott McCallum contrary to the procedures set in place by the governor's own executive order, has since been defended by Gableman in terms of McCallum's appreciation for the judge's "service" on a couple of statewide committees.
OWN obtained the minutes of one of them, the Wisconsin Judicial Council, and it turns out that of seven monthly meetings held between November 16, 2001, and May 17, 2002, Gableman only managed to turn up at two of them.
It would appear that Gableman's service, in this case, was distinguished primarily by his remarkable absence from it.
Quips blogger coldH20, "I guess he was Albert Einstein & Steven Hawking during those two meetings." Well, not exactly. Apart from once seconding someone's else's motion, the only other notable reference to Gableman in the 30 pages of meeting minutes concerns his request to be appointed to one of the Council's committees.
One would hope there was more to Gableman's involvement with the Council than that — he modestly describes himself as a "past member" at his campaign website — but OWN's evidence doesn't point to anything particularly distinguished about it.
So, scratch that "service" as one of the reasons Gableman finds himself on the county circuit court bench. And add it to the reasons why he shouldn't be elected to the State Supreme Court.
eta: Brazen Maverick spots a Gableman spot.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
Criticism of Butler’s vote on a certain case is only valid if a critic makes a legal argument that Butler applied the law incorrectly. It is not valid to complain that his vote did not produce the result the critic preferred.That's a fair assessment. Gableman has been making these sorts of charges against Butler at least since the two appeared for an online debate in January.
During it, Gableman repeatedly and baselessly derided Butler for grounding judicial opinions in the latter's "personal sympathies or feelings." Even the more sensible Butler critics, such as Marquette Law School's Rick Esenberg, will tell you that the results Gableman has in mind are defensible according to legal rationales. But Gableman's foolish and insulting characterizations are not.
The State Bar is hosting a formal debate between the candidates in Madison on March 25, and I sincerely hope someone gets up and expressly challenges Gableman on his evidence-free assertions. If Gableman is any kind of judge at all, he would never let a lawyer get away with comparable claims during, for example, a trial. And this campaign is essentially Gableman's own trial.
So somebody please put him on cross (without putting him on a cross; that only feeds the conservative persecution complex).
Taking judicial attendance
Meanwhile, the diligent investigators at One Wisconsin Now have uncovered more fascinating tidbits pursuant to what they call "Gableman's Suspicious Appointment" to his current Burnett County judgeship. The appointment, which was made by former Republican Governor Scott McCallum contrary to the procedures set in place by the governor's own executive order, has since been defended by Gableman in terms of McCallum's appreciation for the judge's "service" on a couple of statewide committees.
OWN obtained the minutes of one of them, the Wisconsin Judicial Council, and it turns out that of seven monthly meetings held between November 16, 2001, and May 17, 2002, Gableman only managed to turn up at two of them.
It would appear that Gableman's service, in this case, was distinguished primarily by his remarkable absence from it.
Quips blogger coldH20, "I guess he was Albert Einstein & Steven Hawking during those two meetings." Well, not exactly. Apart from once seconding someone's else's motion, the only other notable reference to Gableman in the 30 pages of meeting minutes concerns his request to be appointed to one of the Council's committees.
One would hope there was more to Gableman's involvement with the Council than that — he modestly describes himself as a "past member" at his campaign website — but OWN's evidence doesn't point to anything particularly distinguished about it.
So, scratch that "service" as one of the reasons Gableman finds himself on the county circuit court bench. And add it to the reasons why he shouldn't be elected to the State Supreme Court.
eta: Brazen Maverick spots a Gableman spot.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
Another neocon double standard
Milwaukee blogger and funkmaster the Brew City Brawler raises a valid question which shames me that I didn't think of meself, since it's right up in one of my favorite bailiwicks.
About a year ago, then-presidential candidate John Edwards became involved in a PR kerfuffle over his association with one Amanda Marcotte, whom he'd hired as a campaign staffer. It seems Ms. Marcotte, at her own blog Pandagon, had penned somevulgate vulgar characterizations of the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception (together with at least one accurate one: "ancient mythology").
At the time, naturally, the conservative blogosphere went into Gamma 9 outrage mode over Marcotte's rhetoric. Even beloved Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran delighted in further limning the association between Marcotte and Edwards. (Via, incidentally, the idiotic National Review Online scribe Kathryn Jean Lopez, the likes of whom must have sent NR founder William F. Buckley, Jr. spinning into his grave.)
Nowadays, however, there issues nary a peep nor squeak from McIlheran over fellow right-wing guy John McCain's embrace of the "Reverend" John C. Hagee, a Texas-sized fundamentalist buffoon with a Satan-sized distaste for the Vatican.
This is no wiseass feminazi blogger lambasting the Pope's designs on her fallopian tubes, this is a devout and inspired Man of Christ speaking further to the inerrant authority of God's Holy Word.
Whither McIlheran, the Brawler wonders. Apparently McIlheran has been otherwise engaged in a mini-crusade of his own, in a failed attempt at making a religious hypocrite of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
McIlheran's problem, as usual, is that some of his readers are smarter than he is, in particular — not surprisingly — those that disagree with him. There's Andrew, for instance, who takes issue with McIlheran's impotent ploys:
About a year ago, then-presidential candidate John Edwards became involved in a PR kerfuffle over his association with one Amanda Marcotte, whom he'd hired as a campaign staffer. It seems Ms. Marcotte, at her own blog Pandagon, had penned some
At the time, naturally, the conservative blogosphere went into Gamma 9 outrage mode over Marcotte's rhetoric. Even beloved Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran delighted in further limning the association between Marcotte and Edwards. (Via, incidentally, the idiotic National Review Online scribe Kathryn Jean Lopez, the likes of whom must have sent NR founder William F. Buckley, Jr. spinning into his grave.)
Nowadays, however, there issues nary a peep nor squeak from McIlheran over fellow right-wing guy John McCain's embrace of the "Reverend" John C. Hagee, a Texas-sized fundamentalist buffoon with a Satan-sized distaste for the Vatican.
This is no wiseass feminazi blogger lambasting the Pope's designs on her fallopian tubes, this is a devout and inspired Man of Christ speaking further to the inerrant authority of God's Holy Word.
Whither McIlheran, the Brawler wonders. Apparently McIlheran has been otherwise engaged in a mini-crusade of his own, in a failed attempt at making a religious hypocrite of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
McIlheran's problem, as usual, is that some of his readers are smarter than he is, in particular — not surprisingly — those that disagree with him. There's Andrew, for instance, who takes issue with McIlheran's impotent ploys:
Trying to cast your critics as spiritual voids disrespectful to your particular religious creed is preposterous. Slinging these phony labels around only bolsters your "pity party" bunker mentality where the poor Christians are holding out against Nero and his immoral onslaught. Seriously ... where do you come up with this martyr complex? You're missing the point of my post, and twisting it, but I suppose that's what you're intending to do.Poor McIlheran, busted again. He really should just stick to the usual swooning manlove for Milton Friedman.
March 5, 2008
Creationist post of the week
Jonathan Wells is seriously one of the leading proponents of "intelligent design theory" (ID), which is just a fancy term for creationism. In other words, he's about as good as they've got (with all due respect to noted population geneticist Ann Coulter).Wells, who is a veritable fountain of disingenuous inanity and nonsense, wrote something especially ridiculous about his great Moonie bugaboo, evolution, the other day. And Larry Moran, a professor at the University of Toronto, has all the details, complete with all the relevant links, right here.
I'm not particularly fond of the epithet "IDiots," but if there was ever an instance that truly merited its justified and suitable application, this is unquestionably that instance.
While the ID lexicon contains a number of other fancy-sounding expressions such as "specified complexity," "explanatory filter," and so forth, evidently it doesn't allow for "irreducible embarrassment."
Bush XLIII fixin' for a coronatin' today
For more seamless photoshopping please see Why vote Democrat.
This post approved by
Americans For Bush-Hagee '08.
h/t grumps.
March 3, 2008
WI judges support Butler 24:1
The JS Online has a handy searchable database for comparing the official endorsements of both Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler and challenger Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman.
In response to Butler's new television ad, Gableman lieutenant Darrin Schmitz says, "A bi-partisan majority of sheriffs and district attorneys have spoken loud and clear that Judge Gableman is their choice for the Court; not Louis Butler. Slick television ads can’t erase a long record of anti-law enforcement decisions and loopholes."
Aside from the latter claim being comically preposterous (par for the course), Schmitz's "bi-partisan majority" can't touch the regard in which Butler is held by his professional peers, Wisconsin judges.
According to the database, Butler's April 1 retention is supported by 146 judges, compared to just six who favor Gableman. That's a ratio of 24:1. I respect law enforcement as much as the next guy, but if the fear — groundless or otherwise — is that Butler's jurisprudence makes their jobs more rigorous by holding their feet to the constitutional fire, then the civil libertarian in me says, so be it.
In response to Butler's new television ad, Gableman lieutenant Darrin Schmitz says, "A bi-partisan majority of sheriffs and district attorneys have spoken loud and clear that Judge Gableman is their choice for the Court; not Louis Butler. Slick television ads can’t erase a long record of anti-law enforcement decisions and loopholes."
Aside from the latter claim being comically preposterous (par for the course), Schmitz's "bi-partisan majority" can't touch the regard in which Butler is held by his professional peers, Wisconsin judges.
According to the database, Butler's April 1 retention is supported by 146 judges, compared to just six who favor Gableman. That's a ratio of 24:1. I respect law enforcement as much as the next guy, but if the fear — groundless or otherwise — is that Butler's jurisprudence makes their jobs more rigorous by holding their feet to the constitutional fire, then the civil libertarian in me says, so be it.
Hazelwood not high enough: Scalia
JUSTICE SCALIA: I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation. And I doubt whether a captain is -- is high enough.I thought the Captain was shitfaced.
Dana Milbank reports on Exxon v. Baker. Nearly 20 years later, The fishing industry is still seeking about three weeks worth of Exxon profits in punitive damages following the 1989 Valdez oil spill.
More on Exxon v. Baker at the Legal Information Institute.
"I said rum on the rocks, not run on the rocks."
folkbum senior
Jay Bullock's dad is in the hospital. Jay runs the massively popular Wisconsin blog folkbum's rambles 'n' rants and has been a kind and generous supporter of this writer since pretty much day one, for which I'm grateful. Here's wishing folkbum père a speedy recovery.
You can drop Mr. Jay a positive and hopeful thought in this thread.
You can drop Mr. Jay a positive and hopeful thought in this thread.
March 2, 2008
Brawlin' the Shark
Enjoy.
The ol' Straight Talk Express has sure done a number of u-turns since 2000, when Senator McCain condemned the similarly idiotic sectarian policies of Bob Jones University as "not American." If the Straight Talk Express was anything but a metaphor, there'd be clear probable cause to pull it over on suspicion of drunken driving. — some wiseacre
This post approved by
Americans For Bush-Hagee '08.
The ol' Straight Talk Express has sure done a number of u-turns since 2000, when Senator McCain condemned the similarly idiotic sectarian policies of Bob Jones University as "not American." If the Straight Talk Express was anything but a metaphor, there'd be clear probable cause to pull it over on suspicion of drunken driving. — some wiseacreThis post approved by
Americans For Bush-Hagee '08.
Butler on Here and Now
State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler appeared Friday on Wisconsin Public Television's Here and Now for an interview with host Frederica Freyberg. While the program repeats tonight at 10:30, the eight-minute segment is available at WPR's website here.
Butler discusses, among other things, the case of State v. Brown that's lately been causing a ruckus thanks to a number of questionable statements issuing from Butler's electoral rival, Michael Gableman and his supporters.
Gableman himself will be on Here and Now next Friday.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
Butler discusses, among other things, the case of State v. Brown that's lately been causing a ruckus thanks to a number of questionable statements issuing from Butler's electoral rival, Michael Gableman and his supporters.
Gableman himself will be on Here and Now next Friday.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]
March 1, 2008
A faith-based plagiarist
Update: The original bust.
On the subject of plagiarism (a.k.a. "stealing"), a history instructor at Temple University offers some guidance to students with an example of acceptable paraphrasing using material from the novelist E.M. Forster. It just happens to be fortuitously à propos to the present circumstances:
* English public schools are the equivalent of U.S. private schools.
A longtime aide to President Bush who wrote occasional guest columns for his hometown newspaper resigned on Friday evening after admitting that he had repeatedly plagiarized from other writers. * * *Source: The New York Times.
[Timothy] Goeglein, 44, is little known outside Washington. He is a familiar figure to conservatives and evangelical Christians, who knew him as a spokesman for Gary L. Bauer, the conservative who ran for president in 2000.
When Mr. Bauer dropped out of the race, Mr. Goeglein signed on with Mr. Bush, eventually becoming a top aide to Karl Rove, the chief political strategist. He was the eyes and ears of the White House in the world of religious conservatives and an emissary to that world for Mr. Rove and the president.
On the subject of plagiarism (a.k.a. "stealing"), a history instructor at Temple University offers some guidance to students with an example of acceptable paraphrasing using material from the novelist E.M. Forster. It just happens to be fortuitously à propos to the present circumstances:
In his analysis of the English character Forster carefully considers the indictment of England as "the island of hypocrites," a nation of Empire builders "with a Bible in one hand, a pistol in the other, and financial concessions in both pockets." Although admitting the essential truth of this charge, he finds his countrymen guilty not of conscious hypocrisy but of "unconscious deceit" or "muddle-headedness"—a quality which the public schools* have helped to develop.For "England," simply substitute "the Bush administration."
* English public schools are the equivalent of U.S. private schools.
Gableman's Brown-out
Louis Butler provided the deciding vote to overturn a sexual predator finding by the circuit court resulting in the release of the defendant into Milwaukee County. — Michael GablemanAccording to this press release, One Wisconsin Now is set to file a complaint with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission over Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman's continuing portrayal of State v. Brown, a State Supreme Court opinion in which Justice Louis Butler joined the majority.
The Capital Times would appear to support it.
OWN suggests Gableman's description of the case runs contrary to a Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule which reads in part, "A candidate for a judicial office shall not ... misrepresent ... [a] fact concerning the candidate or an opponent."
I'm assuming the foregoing is supposed to apply to Gableman's claim of Butler's vote in Brown "resulting in the release of the defendant into Milwaukee County." Richard A. Brown is still in custody, and not even in Milwaukee County. He could die in custody tomorrow, for all we know, and never make it to town.
It's a fine point but the result Gableman describes hasn't occurred. In that sense it is a misrepresentation of a fact. I would go even further to say that Gableman doesn't know what's going to happen to Brown, nor where and how his supervised released will be administered.
Unless Gableman is seeking to add soothsayer to mindreader, among his catalog of remarkable propensities.
The other part of the Rule allegedly violated is quite a bit squishier: "A candidate for judicial office should not ... make statements that are likely to confuse the public with respect to the proper role of judges and lawyers in the American adversary system."
He shouldn't, but he may.
That provision is practically impossible to enforce. Statements that arguably fall within its purview can only be corrected with other statements. And even then, there may be confusing statements made in multi-million-dollar advertising campaigns vs. some obscure blogger with half a dozen readers.
Presumably the portion of Gableman's claim that runs afoul here is "Louis Butler provided the deciding vote." Gableman has no idea how the court's deliberations in reaching the Brown result proceeded; they take place in private. But it's also difficult to say whether Gableman's statement had the effect of confusing the public. Maybe the public was already confused.
There's little doubt this case, and this language, was selected by the Gableman campaign to inflame, if not confuse, the public. On the other hand, anybody strolling around Water St. and E. Juneau Ave. of a mild Friday evening wouldn't notice one extra sex offender anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
