Eric Hovde is to geology

As Ron Johnson is to the Constitution.

This guy is a real piece of work.

And if Hovde calls this the solution to high gas prices whereas oil shale makes poor feedstock for gasoline, why isn't his claim completely false?

ETA: More Hovde

Prof. Rick's Freud slipped here

Law professor returns to his eager defenses of Mike Gableman:

We might say that "free legal services' is — deliberately or accidentally — not a complete and accurate description of the free arrangement at issue.

We knew it was a free arrangement all along. It's pleasant to see Mike Gableman's stoutest cheerleader finally acknowledging that fact.

He goes on:

I am also confident that Justice Gableman understood the nature of the arguments being made for his recusal and, in fact, made clear that he based his decision on "the circumstances of the case ... and the submissions of the parties."

'Because he said so,' offers Prof. Rick of Gableman, who doesn't exactly enjoy a reputation for honesty, having been prosecuted by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for lying about another judge's professional record.

If Prof. Rick is so confident now that Gableman "understood the nature of the arguments being made," where was his confidence that Gableman understood the procedural history of State v. Reuben Lee Mitchell?

If Prof. Rick's level of confidence in the latter equaled his present confidence in Gableman's profound understanding, then Prof. Rick would have to admit that Gableman knew full well that he was baldly lying during his political campaign in 2008. But you'll never hear that from Prof. Rick, whose own partisan expediencies regularly trump whatever pretense to principled scholarship he's apparently duped the Journal-Sentinel into accepting. That farce is worse than the sloppy writing.

Good for a laugh, at least.

Fiercely conservative* means never wimping out

'He said he would do what we were looking for.' — Career WISGOPer

Ironically, this latest escapade is directed at protecting a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who is "emasculated" by his female colleagues.

* Translation: Fiercely partisan Republican, in keeping with the Judicial Commission's mandate to "maintain public confidence in the judiciary."

Uh huh.

"When they introduced themselves, three of the nominees referred to their long-term marriages as qualifications to serve on the Commission. One of these, Eileen Burnett of De Pere, spoke at some length of her experience as a homemaker and expert in abstinence education. What she didn’t mention was her record of donating $5,350 directly to Republican campaigns over the past eight years." — Rebecca Kemble

Introduction to logic with your host Robin Vos

[State Rep. Robin Vos] said he heard second hand that someone tried to use a Bed Bath and Beyond mailer as proof of address.

"Is that fraud? I don’t know. It isn’t right and it seems fraudulent. You tell me how that’s not a fraudulent vote."

That's a clown question bro.

Reminder — Gableman may be under investigation

Annals of the Peppercorn:

¹¹ The other forums may be the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

He had better be.

More gems from the Chief Justice:

Justice Gableman’s Order, whether deliberately or accidentally, misconstrues the allegations against him . . .

Although Justice Gableman's Order claims that he "considered the circumstances of this case" and "the submissions of the parties," I conclude that nothing in Justice Gableman’s Order demonstrates that Justice Gableman actually considered the submissions of the District Attorney. Rather, because Justice Gableman's Order either intentionally or inadvertently misstates the grounds of the District Attorney's motion, the Order contains no reasoned basis for the Justice's conclusion that his recusal is "neither warranted nor justified."

The Order inaccurately asserts that the District Attorney seeks recusal because "the Michael Best & Friedrich firm was involved in the cases and had previously represented me." Actually, as I have stated previously, the District Attorney explained in the initial and supplemental filings that he seeks recusal not because Justice Gableman has been personally represented by Michael Best, but rather because Justice Gableman received allegedly free legal services from Michael Best.

Yet, nowhere in Justice Gableman’s Order is there any reference to payment (or absence of payment) for legal services, the fee arrangement with Michael Best, free legal services, a gift of legal services, or valuable consideration for the fee arrangement. None of these words, or any synonyms, appears in the Order.

In other words, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's so-called "conservatives" continue to rule by fiat and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman hasn't changed a bit in terms of his "deliberate or accidental" misrepresentations.

After all, those are how Mike Gableman got elected in the first place.

However, those were more deliberate and deliberative than accidental misrepresentations, as Mike Gableman himself admitted. Indeed if they were accidental misrepresentations then failure to understand a relatively straightforward appellate case should have disqualified him from the State of Wisconsin's highest appeals court right off the bat.

Wisconsin Republicans must be real proud of this character. But nobody else should be proud of what he's done to the reputation of this court.

Follow the PolitiFact logic

PolitiFact grants Willard "Mitt" Rmoney a "Mostly True" for misrepresenting a decision of the Supreme Court because Rmoney is a politician: "PolitiFact focuses on political speech rather than legal speech and judged by that standard Romney is pretty close to accurate."

Haha. Can you believe that? What difference does it make who said it?

If it's false it's false.

Earlier: WSJ calls both the payment and the penalty taxes

The Wall Street Journal is having an Rmoney sad

Lament the hosts of their own Fox "News" teevee show:

[Willard "Mitt" Rmoney] is managing to turn the only possible silver lining in Chief Justice John Roberts's ObamaCare salvage operation—that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty is really a tax—into a second political defeat.

First of all, the Supreme Court didn't say that buying insurance was a tax. And it barely said the penalty for not buying insurance was a tax, only that the penalty was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax, and one that was well supported by a host of federal precedent.

As the Chief Justice put it for one majority of the Court:

Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage.

And what the WSJ editorial mandarins refer to as a "salvage operation" was in fact an exercise of the Court's deference to the will of the elected legislature, the exercise of which in other circumstances Republicans who claim to be "judicial conservatives" rejoice over.

This time they just don't like the result that it led to, in the latest example of why such claims to "judicial conservatism" are fraudulent.

Anyway this sad WSJ editorial is a fun read for reasons other than its inept characterization of the Court's health care reform decision.

Why the gun-totin' DA's petition was denied?

That I don't know.

Perhaps because the gun law has three exceptions to the prohibitions on carrying, and the law says "any" of them apply. In one exception, the law says a judge has the power to grant — or not grant — permission to conceal-carry licensees and in another exception the law says a DA can conceal-carry in court.

Because "any" of the exceptions apply, the judges chose the one that inconveniences the DA, and the judge has quite a bit more stroke in the courtroom than has the DA. For example a judge can tell a DA in her courtroom to sit down, be quiet, stop being such a dick, etc.

The Supreme Court wrote just a few months ago that a petition for a supervisory writ won't be accepted unless the lower court's duty is "plain" and the alleged violation by the subordinate court judge is "clear."

I don't think either of those elements are present here.

Furthermore if the court did accept this petition, it would potentially be in the position of having to contradict itself on the questions of supervisory and original jurisdiction — these are two separate grants of power to the court in the Wisconsin constitution and the Wisconsin statutes — for the third time in roughly one year.

What I find amusing is that the court combined these two separate grants of authority in its Act 10 decision in June, 2011, and a few months later laid down the law with respect to the high burden — the "clear" and the "plain" bits — of establishing its supervisory jurisdiction, which the "conservative" majority itself clearly had not done in the petition against Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi.

The attorney(s) who drafted this petition recognize the distinction between supervisory and original jurisdiction, hence the "or in the alternative" language and the separate references to 809.70 and 809.71 (the distinction between which was also discussed at this blog pursuant to some nonsense that was published at the Marquette Law School Faculty blog by a young Federalist Society pinhead).

More on all of that behind the links in the post [below].

Wisconsin Supreme Court title block of the day

Denied:*

PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 809.71 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS COURT TO TAKE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 809.70

Not effing both.

Petitioners ... must therefore go unarmed from their offices to the courtrooms, through public, unsecured areas.

The poor sods. They must be frightened out of their respective wits.

See also: 809.70.

* "[P]rior to the commencement of this supervisory writ/original action[**] proceeding ... District Attorney Gossett submitted to Justice Michael J. Gableman a memorandum, dated February 6, 2012 ... "

Which got neither of them anywhere.

** Now that is some sly joke, what with the forward slash.

They chose to rely on prayer

Killed by religion:*

Leilani Neumann noticed that her daughter was very tired, but nobody believed she was suffering from a serious illness.

Yet they did believe the child, who died two days later, was "under spiritual attack" and medicine would "be taking the glory from God."

Certification by Wisconsin Court of Appeals (and acceptance).

* Or alternatively, libertarianism.

You are hereby notified of the following order

[T]he judicial discipline statutes, Wis. Stat. § 757.81 through § 757.99 (2009-10), do not require this court to act at this stage in the proceedings. . . . At this point, the statutes direct the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel.

— N. Patrick Crooks, J. (emphasis added)

So why doesn't he?

Earlier: Patience Roggensack Prosser's latest recusal target

Charlie Sykes & Company

Buffoons as usual.

Justice David Prosser just making stuff up again

Prosser maintains panel formation takes a formal order from the court

Baloney.

Immigration quote of the day

Rick Esenberg, in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

"If you are not here illegally, you ought to go back."

This after criticizing the "incoherance" of the immigration debate.

I kid you not.

Perfunctory order

What the hell is a perfunctory order?

There is no such thing.

Obamacare: Liberals in denial

Liberals in denial.

I'm just sayin'. Brace yourselves for Thursday.

Busted

Priceless. 'Twas more than a peppercorn, apparently.

Go Scot. That's me boy.

Wisconsin Republicans win but keep lying anyway

Of the single loss they did sustain:

“Unfortunately a portion of it was fraud,” Robin Vos said.

And unfortunately for Robin Vos, fraud requires intent, which must be proven, and Robin Vos hasn't proven it, so he's simply lying about it.

"I still think that in many ways the election was illegitimate," he said. "To have a recall where someone is going to be serving for the next two years but use the old district lines seems like kind of a rigged setup.

Which is funny, because that is how Robin Vos's party wrote and passed the law, so that the new districts wouldn't take effect until November.

No wonder that dude poured a beer on this clown's head.

It's almost the appropriate reply to his nonsense.

Out-of-State agitators return to Wisconsin

How's this for pointless, recreational litigation.

Christian Gossett, a Republican ...

Naturally.

... [is] represented by a Georgia lawyer.

Also, naturally. I hope they lose but if not, the expression "law enforcement officer" is broadened to include defense attorneys.

Why shouldn't it? Equal protection and all that, figuratively and literally. Defense counsel appears in court for the same reasons, to ensure the law is enforced within the boundaries of the various constitutions.

Given the preponderance of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, an unlucky defendant is just as likely to shoot his own lawyer as the ADA.*

Possibly even more likely.

* The conflict is between sub. 3 and sub. 2, wherein permission to carry in the courtroom is required from the presiding judge, as it should be.
Perhaps Mr. Gossett and his subordinates are free to strut around with their handguns in the courtroom so long as the court is not in session.

Or else maybe a judge can invoke her "supervisory/original" jurisdiction.

Predictable Republican decount hypocrites

Well well, looky here.

On teh web: Kloppenburg + decount.

Peppercorn Mike Gableman

Is back in the news, courtesy of Rep. Robin Vos.

Where are the WJC's complaints against Peppercorn Mike?

Anybody remember this cock-and-bull story?

"It is rather obvious emasculation."

Good grief man. Make of that what you will, I guess.

WJC: Response to formal records request.

Journal-Sentinel photo caption of the day

[In this aerial photo] Gov. Scott Walker can be seen working the grill, just below the American flag.

What a guy.

Minority leader Scott Fitzgerald

Sounds good.

Glenn Grothman rests the WISGOP voter fraud case

Asked for evidence of "voter fraud" — which both Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus claim accounts for several tens of thousands of ballots in every election in the State, up to 2% of millions — Wisconsin GOP senator Glenn Grothman stated there's a "feeling" out there that there is. Seriously.

He said it on the teevee just last night.

Earlier: Rep. Jim Ott's critical thinking skills quote of the day

Scott Walker will not be praying for victory

Is what it says here, because, as Abraham Lincoln put it:

God doesn’t pick sides in elections. He* calls us to be on his side.

It's true. Libertarian Jesus calls us to break the law, violate the constitution, and invent jurisdiction by Republican fiat. And of course Libertarian Jesus says 'No' to collective bargaining. It's in the Bible.

Never mind that Abraham Lincoln's context was the emancipation and restoration of full and equal civil rights for black African slaves according to the promise of the American Declaration of Independence. But that's Scott Walker for you, a pious fraud with a six-figure criminal defense fund derived from political contributions, who's only ever drawn a salary from the tax dollars he professes to detest. After an entire life spent as a career politician, it's about time for Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to gain some experience in the private sector. Do send him there today.

Don't worry, he won't starve, and he'll hardly have to do any actual work.

(Also, if anybody deserves to get elected today, it's Lori Compas.)

* God's an aging white male Republican who probably lives in West Bend.

The Elephant in Scott Walker's Courtroom

Excellent story by Charles P. Pierce* in Esquire.

And if Mr. Russell's attorney is so concerned about pre-trial publicity, then I don't know what he's doing dropping tasty little bonbons like that.

On the morning before the day Walker stands for reelection. (Not that the True Believers care the noose is tightening on their Golden Boy.)

Also, here's one for the leak conspiracists:

"There was nothing illegal in the release of the information," [Judge David] Hansher said. "It was a part of the public file."

Russell takes another crack at having his case dismissed on July 11.

* Who was hilariously busy today.

Scott Walker's creationist bag-o-tricks

Take some expert completely out of context.

Standard creationist modus operandi. For suckers only.

More on this Gableman-quality teevee ad:

Wisconsin — the land of admirable good-government ideals[*] but also of some unpleasantly behind the times racial dynamics.

Thanks, Republicans! You're the best.

* And so much for those.

Scott Walker's world's most expensive photocopying

Reports the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

[Wisconsin governor Scott] Walker said he put money [$160,000] into the [criminal] defense fund so that he could provide thousands of documents to Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, who is heading the [criminal] investigation.

Walker also says he "will not use campaign funds to pay for the criminal defense of his aides." That's a blinding glimpse of the obvious, as the statute authorizing Walker's criminal defense fund says nothing of "aides," but rather "agent[s]," and if he was using the fund to defend his aides who are not agents, then that use of the fund would be illegal.

Reportedly there is about a 50/50 chance that Wisconsinites on Tuesday will return to office a governor "who is being investigated for, charged with or convicted of a criminal violation." That's seriously messed up.

Scott Walker's famous emails

Here's an interesting item:

"Typically, a secrecy order covers questions asked, answers given, transcripts of the proceedings, exhibits produced during the proceedings, or other matters observed or heard in the secret session at a John Doe proceeding," according to an article on the Wisconsin Bar Association website by Marcus J. Berghahn, a criminal defense attorney with experience in such cases.

Huh. "Typically"?

[I]f the [John Doe] proceeding is secret, the record of the proceeding and the testimony taken shall not be open to inspection by anyone except the district attorney ...

Call me a strict constructionist/judicial conservative but I don't see anything in there about "exhibits produced during the proceedings."

Exhibits aren't testimony. Similarly it's been argued that 'typically' the Wis. Supreme Court appoints a three-judge panel to hear judicial discipline cases. That practice is unauthorized by State statute as well.

Indeed, it's directly contrary to State statutes. Not to come over all philosophical, but what is the point of having statutes? Would it work better if we wrote them in a language unfamiliar to English speakers?

Semi-serious question.

GOP chairman's baldfaced lie is "disputed"

Whoever writes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's headlines is quite the comedian. Reince Priebus, the ridiculous chairman of the Republican National Committee, tells an outright lie — that there are tens of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in the State of Wisconsin — and the Journal-Sentinel calls it an "allegation" that is merely "disputed."

"We need to do a [percentage] point or two better than where we think we need to be, to overcome it," sez R. Priebus, so you know what's coming if Tom Barrett edges Scott Walker* in the election next Tuesday.

More baseless lies dressed up as "allegations" by the local paper, which has made something of a habit of legitimating right-wing propaganda.

* Walker is quoted as saying he has no "'reason to agree or disagree' with Priebus' comments," but just the other day he was saying exactly the same thing as Priebus. At least they could keep their lies consistent.

Obviously he has a "reason to agree" if the pair are on the same page.

These clowns depend on popular stupidity — in turn fortified by disingenuous newspaper editors — in order to flourish. Wake up ffs.

Nice work if you can get it

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee has confirmed that it paid suspected pedophile priests to leave the ministry.

Twenty grand.

Then the RCC made Tim Dolan a cardinal. Nowadays he's on Fox News complaining about "Obamacare" trying to force a condom on him.

Ugh, the visuals. Jesus, save me from your followers, as they say.

Which law is Scott Walker talking about?

[Embattled Wisconsin Republican governor Scott Walker] told TMJ-4 television Tuesday morning that he couldn't release the emails because of the ongoing investigation. "I can't by law. I'd be violating the law," Walker said.

Bullshit.* What law? Does it not occur to any reporters** to ask?

Or is "the law" Walker is purporting to hide under a secret as well?

* And you don't have to take my word for it.

** Apart from TMJ-4, which is Scott Walker's official press agency.

I have a far more accurate headline:

WISGOP governance encourages child neglect, beatings

Anal intercourse reminds J-S reader of Scott Walker

Where does the word Sodomy or Sodomites come from and what does it mean— Sodom and Gomorrah were cities where Homosexuality was rampant and was destroyed and is a reminder to us today that the lifestyle is wrong. BTW— Do you think for a second we will not be judged the same if we allow gay marriage— Marriage is an institution created by the ALL MIGHTY and that means HE has the final word— We are fortunate God hasn't allowed us to be destroyed for domestic partnership status ... Y'all have a nice day and GO SCOTT WALKER !!! — Nascarfan

I'm not certain that anal sex is exclusive to same-sex couples, but whatever. Attempted reasoning is a waste of time with these folks.

Wisconsin papers create false equivalencies

Glad somebody exposed these silly propagandas for what they are.

Here's my favorite risibly false equivalency from — where else — the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

In more signs of the national attention, both the National Review and The New York Times Magazine are running lengthy stories about the June 5 recall race.

Yeah, one by an actual reporter and the other by a complete hack.*

* Ed Fallone made short shrift of the WPRI buffoon earlier, here.

So Scott Walker is being investigated for crimes

That would be the right honorable governor of Wisconsin

It must be true, because Rick Esenberg — he's a professor of teh law, doncha know — said so, and in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel even:

To establish a legal defense fund ... [i]t is only necessary that your conduct is being investigated for potential criminal violations of the pertinent laws.

Ah, so as the governor has in fact established a legal defense fund, ergo the governor is being investigated for crimes: the "pertinent" ones being, incidentally, felonies. That means they carry prison sentences.*

That's good to know! Because Walker is up for reelection in a couple of weeks. And the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which hosts Prof. Rick's legal lessons,** thinks you should return to office a governor who's being investigated for felony crimes. But wait! Right after he just got done establishing his "only necessary" bar, Prof. Rick appears to lower it a bit:

Nor is it even necessary for Scott Walker to be the one who is being investigated. If the agent of a candidate or a public official is being investigated, he or she can establish a fund.

Prof. Rick isn't being terribly clear here, is he? I mean, for a Marquette University professor of teh law. Who is the "he or she"? Is it the agent?

Nope, it's the candidate or public official, Scott Walker (who is both).

And, being a rather coy professor of the law, Prof. Rick doesn't want to tell you what an agent is, in the legal sense of the expression. Maybe he forgot to, after all his nattering about "partisan panic" and "proctological examination[s]."*** Well, I'll tell you: An agent is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of the principal. The principal, in this case, is Scott Walker. And the agent could be one of several individuals already implicated — or soon to be implicated — in the Milwaukee County DA's investigation. Funny Prof. Rick wouldn't tell you what an agent is, huh?

Because the thing is, if the agent mentioned in the statute wasn't authorized to act by Scott Walker, then she or he is no agent at all.

Evidently Prof. Rick was seized by his own partisan panic and clenched sphincter, because for the purposes of the relevant statutes the public official and the agent(s) are one and the same, given that the authorization to act is bestowed upon the agent(s) by the public official.

"Much ado about nothing," harrumphs Prof. Rick.

Well sure it is, when you simply ignore a substantive legal term of art.

Too cute by half, this character is. God help his law students, if they're absorbing any of his special brand of Republican Party disingenuousness.

* As opposed to merely confined at David Clarke's evangelical county jail.

** He's kinda like their agent, reporting from WISGOP HQ.

*** "Elevating the discussion," is what they call this. The elevating in this instance, assumedly, is Prof. Rick's characterization of his adversaries' heads elevated up their asses: respectful debate. Thanks for that, MJS.

Somebody is stupid but it's clearly not Tom Barrett

"I understand that Barrett is apparently privy to the entire investigation — contrary to the law." — blargher Owen Robinson*

"Is Barrett too stupid to understand what 'John Doe' means?," wonders leading Wisconsin conservative Republican blargher Owen Robinson of Milwaukee mayor and Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett, who's called for the incumbent Scott Walker to release emails from Walker's secret system, which isn't a secret any more. "The whole [John Doe] proceeding is legally bound to be secret," claims the top blargher.

That's simply not true.

The examination of any witnesses identified by the district attorney to the presiding judge may be secret,** say the statutory provisions governing John Doe proceedings; secrecy is at the discretion of the presiding judge and in any event the judge's authority to impose secrecy is limited to the witnesses' testimony and the record of the proceeding.

That is, the judge may impose secrecy with respect to testimony about the emails during the examination of witnesses at the proceeding, but he has no authority to impose secrecy orders upon Scott Walker's interoffice emails themselves. Therefore it's perfectly appropriate — and not at all "too stupid" — for Tom Barrett to demand that Scott Walker produce his formerly secret — the former secrecy of which has nothing to do with the discretionary secrecy given the judge — correspondence.

Stupider still is O. Robinson's claim that Barrett is "privy to the entire investigation ... contrary to the law." That's the sort of assertion, which strongly implies unlawful actions on the part of either Barrett or those investigators subject to the actual secrecy orders of the judge, that its speaker needs to provide either testimony or evidence in furtherance of.

But obviously top Wisconsin blargher Owen Robinson is in possession of neither such evidence nor such testimony. It's just a stupid thing to say.

And it's precisely those manifestly irresponsible and baseless accusations that Janine Geske et al took to the papers to thoroughly debunk.

Meanwhile blargher Robinson wonders if others are stupid? How droll.

The right-wing's tedious assertions that there are "leaks" coming from the John Doe investigation into several of Walker's political cronies — and perhaps Walker himself — are popular among the local conservative contingent, yet not one of them has ever provided even one example. But they believe whatever they want to believe, contrary to the reality.

However, that's nothing new, and is most certainly no secret.

* See also our friend John Foust's Owen Robinson parody site, Boots and Kittens, still the funniest blog in Wisconsin: "Follow the logic."

** Compare "shall select."

lol wingnutz

As such.

I took down my post on Elizabeth Warren plagiarizing from the book Getting On the Money Track. On Amazon.com, the Warren book All Your Worth is listed as having been published January 9, 2006. As it turns out, that is the paperback publication date; the hardback book was published in March 2005. As such, it appears that Getting on the Money Track (published in October 2005) plagiarized from All Your Worth, not the other way around.

Via your preeminent Republican house organ, the National Review.

In fact the copyright claim was created in 2004.

Publication date: February 8, 2005. Stellar work, GOP house organ.

After all that, still wrong.

Wing-nut Freudian projects own sexual frustration

A typical suburban Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reader responds:

There is no way that the man's wife does not have a huge effect on the conduct of the [John Doe] investigation. A man has needs and a wife with a husband that has a powerful position that can control the outcome of a political prosecution and doesn't do what his wife desires will not be seeing those needs met any time soon. This is certainly a much worse conflict of interest than even the signing of a recall petition. The sex drive is very powerful and being cut off by the wife is certain to induce bias into the case.

Haha.

That's right, kids: It's pent-up semen that will bring down Scott Walker.

Well, whatever it takes, I guess.

Ron Johnson, now more embarrassing than ever

If that is possible ...

Ron Johnson Praises Right Wing Talk Radio for Educating Americans

But see:

It’s Official — Watching Fox Makes You Stupider

What a thoroughgoing doofus.

One square blockhead surrounded by reality

That would be Sunny Schubert, among the "columnists" retained by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel to "elevate the level of discussion," who vilifies the homeless* as "squalid squatters" while choosing to heap praise on — I'm not making this up — "big corporations" like Home Depot.

Presumably because a Sub-Zero carton makes adequate living quarters.

On the other hand, perhaps David Haynes and his friends on the daily paper's editorial board are to be commended for providing a platform to let conservatives make themselves look as foolish as humanly possible.**

Sunny Schubert, incidentally, is the same one who inaugurated Haynes's project with the admonition, "Dems should shut up." Yes indeed. Just kick back and marvel at Sunny Schubert's comic lack of self-awareness.

* A lot of these folks suffer from mental illnesses, so Sunny Schubert's Republican ravings are more insidious and heartless than they appear.

Not that that should come as any surprise, where one of the Grand Old Party's current golden boys is an enthusiastic disciple of Ayn Rand.

** The one who is to be commended is Caryl Davis — whose name the Journal-Sentinel's editors can't even spell correctly: they advertise her as "Carol" Davis — who made one post and apparently fled the scene.

Wisely.

Paul Ryan's (R—Côte de Nuits) budget triage

1. Impoverished imaginary children
2. Impoverished blastocysts
3. Actual impoverished children

According to a supporter:

"If [Congressman Paul Ryan is] guilty of anything, it's of caring too much for the children of tomorrow and not enough for the children of today," said historical theologian Mark Johnson.

It's how Jesus and the pope would have wanted it, argues Paul Ryan.

The $700.00 in wine [Congressman Paul Ryan's table for three] consumed over the course of 90 minutes amounted to more than the entire weekly income of a couple making minimum wage.

Let them drink 2004 Domaine Robert Jayer-Gilles Echezeaux du Dessus.*

* "A really mediocre year in Côte de Nuits."

Not to worry — the hungry children won't know any better.

6,200 is the most controversial number

Rejected Three Dog Night song title?

Nah just the Journal-Sentinel carrying water for Scott Walker.

Dick Ginkowski, in praise of Lori Compas

Well said. And yes, she is very much for real.

Wisconsin: It's about time to fire Franklyn Gimbel

Dear sir, your account is net 60 days in arrears.

Admits veteran Milwaukee attorney Franklyn Gimbel, who the Wisconsin Judicial Commission retained to "assist in the prosecution of [the] formal action" against State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser:

“Even though there's nothing in the statutes that requires [an order from the Supreme Court], apparently there's some past practices where that's happened,” Gimbel said.

Apparently?!

This guy filed a formal complaint against Prosser two months ago and he's still stuck on "apparently"? "Apparently," Mr. Gimbel's done little more than look at the Supreme Court's online dockets for a few prior Judicial Commission cases — including two which were filed against Prosser's Republican Party colleagues, Justice Annette Ziegler and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman; that makes three out of four Republicans* on the court being the respondents in formal disciplinary actions — and was seeing the word "order" at the left hand side of the docket notations.

That isn't law. That isn't even doctrine. And it isn't even past practice, as former Justice Janine Geske points out in the same Shepherd Express article, it's a "referral," a mere acknowledgement. It's like an entry on an accounting ledger. According to Mr. Gimbel, Richard S. Brown, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals who is mandated by State statute to convene the three-judge panel which is to hear the Commission's case, is "waiting for an order from the Supreme Court before proceeding."

I hope he's not holding his breath because there ain't no such thing. The Supreme Court has no authority anywhere to withhold an order that doesn't exist in — nor is even contemplated nor implied by — the law.

The operations of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's investigations and prosecutions in both ethics and disability cases are at arm's length from the Supreme Court and that arm is a detachable, detached prosthetic.

Seriously, if Gimbel hasn't gotten to the bottom of this after 60 days, it's time for the Commission to hire somebody who will do it. Hell, if David Prosser's Republican buddy Scott Fitzgerald can conjure up fake arrest warrants based on bogus premises derived from frivolous lawsuits, then somebody can compel Judge Brown to obey the clear directive of the State statutes and get on with entertaining the Prosser prosecution.

A prosecution that is separately mandated by State statute — it's one thing to disobey the law, it's another to obstruct its progress on a distinct procedural track: Here now we have both happenstances.

And Ed Fallone is correct, as usual: "[M]y guess is that they do not want to have a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issue a negative ruling against Prosser." Quite so. And they'll ignore the law to avoid it.

Even the chief judge of the Court of Appeals will ignore it. "Apparently."

What a travesty. Of the law. Courtesy of alleged judicial conservatives.

The latter phony pretense being the grandest farce of them all.

"Your precious belief that we have a government of laws in Wisconsin never fails to amuse." — @BrewCityBrawler

Fortunately that's still funny, but admittedly a little less so this morning.

* The fourth Republican is "hypocritical" and makes stuff up.

MJS: Level of discussion elevated higher still

"Tossing insults," announces Marquette University professor of law Rick Esenberg, is "the preferred approach of the Barrett camp."

That would be the same Rick Esenberg who just got done saying Milwaukee mayor and Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett was suffering from 'female hysteria.' And all of it at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's project devoted to "elevating the level of discussion."

Dunno who should feel sillier, the paper or the university.

Although the paper is pretty much beyond hope at this point. I know the newspapers are dying but they don't have to be so pathetic about it.

Prosser, Roggensack hypocrites? Of course!

Atty. Tom Basting writes:

The conference regarding [learned counsel John] Dawson was held in secret. After the vote was taken not to reappoint, Justice Pat Roggensack spoke to Gannet Wisconsin Media (according to the Appleton Post Crescent) and attempted to disclose what had occurred in the closed session — which she had insisted be closed.

Meanwhile Justice Prosser is deciding who gets reappointed to the chair of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission at the moment Justice Prosser is the subject of a pending Wisconsin Judicial Commission prosecution.

How embarrassing. For everybody.

Journal-Sentinel: Consider the discussion elevated

Commenter Jim Spice notes Marquette University professor of law Rick Esenberg's use of the term 'having the vapors' to describe Milwaukee mayor and Democratic candidate for governor Tom Barrett. 'The vapors' is an archaic expression for an equally archaic Victorian-era condition known then as "female hysteria." Once again, Esenberg's addlepated prose* is part of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's latest project of enlisting local bloggers, purportedly to "elevate the level of discussion."

How's that workin' out for ya, MJS?

Predictably, it was the right-wingers who poisoned the well.

* At least somebody's checking his brutal spelling and grammar.

Yes let's elevate the level of discussion shall we?

An initial entry in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial page editor David Haynes's local blargher project, which was advertised to "elevate the level of discussion," begins — I shit you not — "Dems should shut up."