I'm no fan of the death penalty

But this one doesn't bother me* too much:

Shortly after 9 p.m., the executioners will inject Mr. Muhammad with a series of chemicals, ending with a fatal dose of potassium chloride, according to prison officials.

Governor Will Not Stay Sniper Execution

Tim Kaine, Virginia's first Roman Catholic governor, has openly expressed his faith-based opposition to capital punishment, but promised as a candidate in 2005 that he would carry out Virginia's death penalty law despite his beliefs.

Mr. Muhammed, as the Times calls him, was a terrorist and capital punishment — like it or not — is pretty clearly authorized by both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

It's too bad H.L. Mencken's "On Hanging A Man" isn't online.

* This one does.

A principled Republican

I'd vote for this dude:

If anything, [the "Impartial Justice" legislation] inhibits the ability of candidates to get their message out and it expands the influence of outside interests. That is exactly the opposite of reform and there is no way I could support that.

And this abridging of speech is bound to be troublesome, particularly as it's exacerbated by the expansion of those outside influences.

Moreover, bear in mind that a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently voted to insulate themselves against legal challenges based in the propriety of that influence by subjugating the people's right to due process of law to their political fundraising objectives.

I don't understand why more Wisconsinites aren't appalled by that, never mind the fact that anybody would actually celebrate it.

Legislators and the governor are expected to respond to public opinion. It's the very nature of their jobs. But judges are not at all supposed to concern themselves with or respond to public opinion. Their job, plain and simple, is to interpret the law and to make rulings and decisions based on their interpretation of the law.

Michael Ellis: Court campaign bill misses the mark

The core problem is that they are political candidates at all.

Surreal Debate Wisconsin

In which at least one man's ability to successfully order a chronology of events is discombobulated by the Barack Derangement Syndrome:

Your Obama Justice Department is on the loose again. This time they are [sic] asking for all visitors from a news website (a left of center one at that).

The embedded link contains this misleading observation:

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" — that would be current attorney general Eric Holder — and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."

All very fascinating, because the subpoena in question was issued on January 23, 2009.* Eric Holder didn't succeed to the position held by his Bush administration predecessors until February 3 and then on February 25 — Lo and Behold! — the subpoena was withdrawn.

* And in fact the subpoena was issued by a United States Attorney, Timothy M. Morrison, who was appointed to that position in April, 2008 by George W. Bush's Attorney General Michael Mukasey (that would be the guy who took the reins after Alberto "Selective Amnesia Syndrome" Gonzales was effectively drummed out of office).

Meanwhile in Pennsylvania

A familiar scenario:

Once again, judicial elections have left a bad taste in the mouths of Pennsylvania voters. It's as if we all watched from the sidelines as some celebrities threw an expensive party, got into a fistfight and traded barbs in the tabloids the morning after. We were entertained for a few minutes and then wondered what it all had to with us.

But choosing judges IS important, and their decisions DO affect our lives. Selecting judges deserves a process worthy of the importance of the decision.

Judging the election.

We should be proud of our Supreme Court

... for its thoughtful consideration of this difficult issue.* The justices had to consider the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations to participate in elections and the due process rights of litigants to receive a fair and impartial hearing before a court. These are both fundamental rights and weighing them can be a tough balancing act.

Not really. Without due process, the government could otherwise deprive persons of their property, their liberty, and even their lives.

Without the First Amendment ... what? You couldn't cut a Supreme Court judge a check for ten grand? And call that a balancing act?

Madness.

* And, presumably, also for the majority's verbatim adoption of the quoted author's trade association's proposed rules of judicial ethics, which was ostensibly intended to improve upon the public's perception of the court as a fair and unbiased dispenser of justice.

Gute Frage

cc: Chancellor Merkel with the answer.

eta: More.

Foto: Young Republicans clamber into West Berlin, 1989.

Recall Gableman

Former Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter Steven Walters is today hinting darkly of a whispering campaign to recall Michael Gableman from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

A recall petition would require gathering, within 60 days, the verified signatures of 540,425 Wisconsin electors, or 115,324 more people than actually pulled the lever for Gableman in the first place.

That seems unlikely, but it would certainly be a resounding mandate.

For those who have been following the motions for recusal filed against Michael Gableman, Art. XIII, §12 ¶(1) of the Wisconsin constitution further indicates — for purposes of recall, at least — that Gableman is an incumbent elective officer who represents the State.

I kind of figured that was what Mr. James Bopp, Esq. was getting at.

How to beat the faculty blog embargo

Simply ignore the explicit requirements:



And spam advertise your Vegas law firm instead.

(Woe, apparently, to those clients who have a concern to express or a question to ask of their attorney outside of regular office hours.)

They can't both be right*

Said Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen:

Last year, after [being] granted permission by the State Assembly, I filed an amicus brief in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This case recognized the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. However, the case revolved around the actions of the government of the District of Columbia, a federal entity. The Supreme Court did not decide on whether this right would apply to states and local governments.

But, said Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick:

Sotomayor’s position is to the left of even the activist Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which concedes, albeit reluctantly, that Heller prohibits both state and federal interference with the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.

There are other arguments for merit selection as well.

Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon.

— Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook

Meaning: An individual State's power to regulate firearms is constitutionally a weightier concern than is the federal government's historically more recent interest in interfering with that power. Judge Easterbrook's views are probably too conservative for conservatives.

By which I mean situationally inconvenient to their liberalism.

And, based on the foaming orgy of Republicans bellowing "Trial lawyers! Trial lawyers!" last night in the House of Representatives, I wouldn't expect conservatives to start calling for the incorporation of the 7th Amendment's guarantee of civil jury trials any time soon.

Although they would more than likely approve a twenty-dollar cap on medical malpractice damages: "original intention" and all that.

(Incidentally, don't those impertinent Republican bellowers understand that criminal prosecutors are trial lawyers too?)

* Van Hollen is right.

I didn't really want to say it

So I'll leave it to this letter to the editor:

Having recently read the ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four conservative justices regarding no recusal in cases involving their financial contributors, I now feel that it would be appropriate for those justices to give up their robes for NASCAR-type uniforms.

Of course, for our two most recently elected justices,* there wouldn't be many names on their uniforms but just three letters: WMC.

Tom Gilson
Lomira

Contributors' impact is apparent, 11/04/09.

* Prior to the (third) reelection of Shirley Abrahamson, that is.

Incidentally, for all the nut-right handwringing over Obama's nomination of former Justice Louis Butler to the federal district court, it's rather astonishing that Wisconsinites keep returning the at-least-equally "radical" Chief Justice to the court, is it not.

Indeed, this past April, Abrahamson won 69 of the State's 72 counties despite joining in every single one of the handful of decisions conservatives continually raise against Butler. Conveniently, several million dollars worth of character assassination is carefully excluded from the calculus underlying the right's "theory" of radicalism.

Nary, either, a mention of what the Wisconsin Judicial Commission calls "lying" committed by Butler's politically ambitious opponent in service of ascending to his present seat on the State Supreme Court.

Yet Ed Whelan, John Fund, and the Washington Moonie Times's editorial board are considered by some to be competent and effective assessors of Wisconsin judicial politics and law. Gimme a break.

Locally we are pleasured by Charlie Sykes and Patrick McIlheran, but all you get from them is effluvia recycled from PowerLine.com.

Joni Mitchell is 66

In France They Kiss On Main Street
Coyote
Goodbye Pork Pie Hat
Amelia
Free Man In Paris

1979, with Pat Metheny, guitar; Jaco Pastorius, bass; Lyle Mays, keyboards; Don Alias, drums/congas; Michael Brecker, tenor sax.

Paper defies, then gushes over Palin

The press was barred from the former AK Gov's appearance in Westallica last night, but the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel sent a reporter anyway, who came away with these airy impressions.

She has kept in touch with tens of thousands of her admirers through online social networking tools.

"Emceed by WTMJ-AM radio personality Charlie Sykes ... visit is days before her book is released ... less than two weeks before the release of her memoir 'Going Rogue' ... Palin said, 'Wisconsin, you went rogue'* ... stunning rise ... a potent force in national politics ... the Wisconsin event was a dress rehearsal for Palin's book tour ..."

Front page news. Why bar the press when it's so eager to assist you with your PR and push your book sales? No crowd estimate, however.

Perhaps that missing tidbit is part of the deliberate fawning.

* A nod to Gableman?

Whither Tom Strini*

The program began with Mozart's "Overture to 'Le Mozze [sic] di Figaro'" (The Marriage of Figaro), followed by the composer's "Concerto No. 27 in B-flat major for Piano and Orchestra," featuring pianist Jeremy Denk.

What are those, scare quotes? Strange newspaper style, that.

And how on Earth does the soloist play rubato "throughout" a piano concerto, particularly one of Mozart's, without precipitating a complete train wreck?

Also, this is confusing, also:

No cameras or cell phones are not allowed inside either.

WKOWTV.com.

* eta: Aha — Here he is.

Informative headlines

Grandmother of baby found in box says mother needs help

Disqualified from the pool of rational beings

In which Oshkosh's The Chief is brought (and brings) great mirth.

Massive irony alert

Conservative candidate haggles over meaning of "loophole"

Well, there goes Terrence Wall's WMC support down the drain.

Prosser and McCabe: One more thing

"Appalled" writes:

I don't know if "Illusory Tenant" is a lawyer or just someone who regularly stays at the Holiday Inn, but as an attorney it is truly frightening to think that [those comments about Justice Prosser and Mike McCabe] might have come from a fellow member of the Bar.

Justice Prosser did indeed "blow his stack" and anyone who defends his deplorable conduct does not have sufficient appreciation for and devotion to the adversarial system that relies on a contest between advocates representing their party's positions and then an impartial person or group of people trying to determine the truth.

Hang on just a minute there, counselor. I have plenty of appreciation for the adversarial system, much of it demonstrated herein.

However, first of all, this wasn't adversarial trial process, this was an open hearing on a series of proposed judicial ethics rules.

While there were a number of written petitions reflecting competing and even directly contradictory views filed with and defended before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, this was not a case of "Smith v. Jones" or "State v. Brown" where true adversaries in the legal sense are situated at either side of the versus.

Second, to whatever extent that Justice Prosser's conduct was "deplorable," I wasn't defending that. I was defending his reasons for getting upset, those reasons being a set of facts entirely separate from the demeanor of the speaker relating those facts.

Moreover I don't even find Prosser's conduct "deplorable," under the circumstances. That's his court, after all, and any lawyer — or any non-lawyer, like Mike McCabe* — who ventures into any court had better be well prepared for whatever dyspepsia a judge might or might not be affected by that morning. It's part of the job.

(And I'm here to tell you that — to cite but one of innumerable examples — an irate pipefitter superintendent makes even the grumpiest jurisprude look like Saint Francis of Assisi.)

But does the judge have a point, is the pertinent question. Yes, Justice Prosser did have a point, and a valid one in my estimation, as I explained pretty clearly. It doesn't much matter to me whether he expressed it placidly or hysterically (he was somewhere in between).

Yesterday in the Madison Capital Times Dave Zweifel also addressed the same episode. During Justice Prosser's questioning of Mr. McCabe, at least four matters were raised: (1) not hearing Scott Jensen's appeal (2) appearing as a witness at Scott Jensen's trial (3) so-called "thievery" and (4) a cup of hemlock.**

Notice Zweifel doesn't engage either (1) or (2), which were the particular topics this space took up, except to proffer this awkward grammatical construction:

Prosser [was willing] to testify on behalf of former Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen's misconduct in office trial, a move that startled the State's law enforcement community.

It's hard to tell what the object of "on behalf of" is in this sentence — Scott Jensen? misconduct? the trial itself? — but both the purpose and substance of that testimony are the subjects of reasonably differing interpretation and it's grossly unfair to impugn Justice Prosser purely for having delivered it.

Particularly as he was subpoenaed to do so.

You want to locate something to legitimately disagree with Justice Prosser about, go read the majority opinion he fully joined in State v. David S. Stenklyft (and then read the concurrences/dissents,*** to discover a constitutional lesson in adversarial process).

* The non-lawyers admitted inside the bar are more often the ones dressed in orange pants and chained to the floor.

** A reference to Plato's Phaedo, which originally had something to do with corrupting the youth of Washington County.

*** Jeff Sessions never heard about them from the Moonie Times.

Creationist = plagiarist

Shocking, I tell you.

More Ray "If bananas, then Jesus" Comfort.

The Preamble has no legal force anyway

My pocket Constitution, here, let me show you it:

Fortunately this Boehner is pronounced BAY-ner.

Seriously, how could he have possibly said that. This Canadian knows better than he does. And Michele Bachmann applauding in the wings.

Oy.

A "rather obscure Congressional district"

Oh, sure, now it is. Here's a highly amusing video montage of Fox News's extravagant fluffering of Douglas "Mr. Excitement" Hoffman.

"Heavyweight"* Sarah Palin will be in town tomorrow evening, and Harris Kane reminds you to leave your recording devices at home.

* So sayeth sometime snow machine passenger, Greta Van Susteren.

Shorter Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

'Justice Butler, I couldn't be bothered actually reading any of these Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions of yours interpreting Wisconsin law, but could you explain to me how come this one law professor guy in Baltimore who you probably never even heard of didn't like them?'

'Also, why did you lose an election by 51 to 49, a two-to-one margin?'

I guess they don't call him The Ranking Member for nothing.

I don't know whether or not I should be surprised by a United States Senator from Alabama attempting to initiate a discussion on the opinions of a Wisconsin court he hasn't even read. Probably not.

Senator Sessions might consider engaging in some research beyond simply skimming the editorial page of the Washington Moonie Times.

If he's too busy, then maybe resist making himself appear foolish. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel calls Jefferson B. Sessions's inquiries "pointed." I call them embarrassing and woefully ill-informed.

Which is sort of the opposite of pointed.

More seriously, I was pleased to hear both Justice Butler and Senator Russ Feingold make reference to a fact that was raised at this space one month ago, that Butler won the aggregate vote in the 44 counties which comprise the federal Western District of Wisconsin.

Well played, gentlemen. Ditto to Senator Patrick Leahy for making the record that the other contestant in the referenced election remains accused by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission of lying.

Wait, wasn't she that Christian GOP girl?

Prejean 'sex tape' too XXX even for creepy celebrity website

TMZ.com's Harvey Levin obtained the Prejean video during the summer, and indicated Prejean was alone in the video.

Alone with no million-dollar "religious discrimination" settlement.

Talk about rubbing it in

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on 11-03-09 reminds Messrs. Austin Nimocks and Brian Raum of Scottsdale, AZ that their motions for pro hac vice admission are granted, but their petition for original action is denied. On another view, the court saved them a plane ticket.

WMSC recusal rule reax

Stanley Kutler is well worth the read:

Justice O’Connor must be appalled

I reckon she is also.

Actual Racine Journal-Times headline:

Supreme Court recusal rule is disgrace to state

Whoa. That guy's reaction makes my own seem cold, calculated ... practically Zen-like. So somebody was paying attention; that's good to know. Even the otherwise restrained Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel inquires boldly of the court(s):

To the highest bidder?

More than just a little rhetorical, I feel we have to take that as.

I don't know about that "impartial justice" bill the J-S is promoting, however. Looks more like an instantaneous constitutional flusterpuck to me. But, hey. It's nice work if you can get it.

This was a nice touch, though:

Such purveyors of so-called phony issue ads as the Club for Growth and the Coalition for America's Families.

Dadburnit, there's that pesky Coalition for America's Families agin.

Last we all reconnoitered them thar badlands, Mr. R.J. Johnson of "shadowy interest group" renown was a top Scott Walker for Governor (never mind America's Families this time around) desperado.

Is that still the case?

Recent and disparate citations

The Wisconsin Law Journal.
The Onion's A.V. Club.

Top that, suckas.

Kudos, (former) AK Gov

Congratulations to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck,* who helped elect the first House Democrat from upstate New York since the Civil War era.

* The unsuccessful** conservative candidate Douglas L. Hoffman had pledged his "sacred honor" to the infamous Fox News madcap.

** Or not, where dying on that NY-23 hill is the new winning.

eta: Good stuff from my favorite WISGOPer, the Recess Supervisor.

Too et cetera for the law profs

The following legitimate and supportable observations were submitted to the Marquette University Law School faculty blog almost 24 hours ago, but were never published. In the meantime, nearly a dozen other comments have been duly approved and posted.

They permit unwarranted attacks on the legitimacy of the courts and the integrity of judges.

I understand you’re talking about proposed rules of ethics you don’t care for here, but that sentence reads far more accurately as a description of judicial elections.

In fact, it indicates almost perfectly the political strategies of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Coalition for America’s Families (or, from your perspective, Mike McCabe, although he has a lot less money and, therefore, a lot less influence).

It’s always seemed to me a little disconcerting that in Wisconsin a heavy emphasis is placed on legal and personal ethics in law school, in the criteria for admission to the bar, and in annual continuing legal education requirements, but when it comes to electing judges, we accept this multi-million-dollar free-for-all of disreputable behavior and then blithely chalk it all down to the First Amendment, which was drafted by people who likely would have been horrified by many of these more recent shenanigans.

Interesting also that among the ("conservative") justices who inquired of the petitioners if the groups they represented had a view as to whether judges should be popularly elected or appointed based on meritoriousness, the latter suggestion was implicitly treated as some kind of heresy.

The law school faculty blog announces that while it welcomes comments, it reserves the right not to publish them based on "redundancy, incivility, untimeliness, poor writing, etc."

And these are not exactly wild, outlying opinions. As Alex De Grand puts it this morning in the State Bar of Wisconsin's InsideTrack:

The First Amendment outweighed due process arguments when the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared on Oct. 28 that judges are not required to recuse themselves from cases featuring campaign contributors or parties who made independent expenditures.

More specifically, the First Amendment rights of elected judges and their campaign contributors trump the due process rights of litigating parties, both plaintiffs and defendants. That's troubling.

The courts are a creation of constitutions, which are in turn a construction of the people. That the people's right to due process of law in court is subservient to elected judges' rights to political speech turns some very fundamental notions of justice on their head.

It's supposed to be the other way around. And we should expect the concepts embodied within due process to evolve, but not devolve.

Ironic, isn't it then, that the justices who embrace the foregoing displacement of due process rights are those same ones ideologically predisposed to denounce "activist judges" and "judicial power-grabs."

Considerably beyond irony is the fact that the majority's disposition — which was the adoption of ethics guidelines authored by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce — came about following hearings on the subject of the public's perception of fairness and bias on the courts.

And this move was intended to improve that perception?

Prosperity Gospel

Last year’s Dead Again, which reflected vocalist and longtime atheist Peter Steele’s unlikely conversion to Catholicism, was Type O Negative’s highest charting album yet.

— Shepherd Express

Welcome, Mr. Inhofe!

McIlheran warns of "low" campaign

Uh huh, whatever you say. This coming from the guy who tried his darndest to connect one of Obama's education advisers to NAMBLA.

So, yeah, keep it clean, those of you who aren't Patrick McIlheran.

h/t capper.

Are you now or have you ever been

The following is part of a remarkable exchange that took place last Wednesday at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, during an open hearing on various proposed amendments to the rules of judicial conduct, between Michael Gableman and Virginia M. Bartelt, the attorney for a petitioner, the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin:

Michael Gableman: Counsel, we're discussing funding here and impartiality. Who funds the League of Women Voters?

Virginia Bartelt: It comes from a variety of sources. Certainly the league itself is an interest group.

Gableman: Does uh, do those sources include the Open Society Institute?

Bartelt: I'm sorry that I don't know the answer to that.

Gableman: If I indicated that the League of Women Voters' official website listed the Open Society Institute as one of its donors, would you have any reason to doubt that?

Bartelt: I would have no reason to doubt it.

Gableman: Do you know what the Open Society Institute is?

Bartelt: I don't know, your honor, but the executive director of the league is [telling me] that that is not a member of the Wisconsin association.

Gableman: Okay. So, but the Open Society Institute is one of the donors to the league.

Bartelt: It's possible. Nationally.

Gableman: And that's a George Soros-funded entity. Do you know that?

Bartelt: I don't know that.

Gableman: Okay, so you wouldn't know, for instance, how much George Soros has contributed to the League of Women Voters in the last, say, five years.

Bartelt: I would not, your honor.

Gableman: Or the last year.

Bartelt: No.

Gableman: Could you find that out.

Bartelt: I imagine that I could.

Gableman: Would you.

Bartelt: Certainly.

Gableman: Okay. What kind of time frame do you think.

Bartelt: Within five days.

Gableman: Okay. Thank you.

Gableman's objective here is blindingly obvious: To discredit the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin by linking it to one of the paranoid right-wing's favorite boogeymen. He's playing at cheap politics, this time directly from the bench of the Supreme Court.

Except the LWVW isn't a State Supreme Court; it's an organization of people concerned about the public's perception of the court's impartiality. That is, the LWVW has no such obligation of its own to impartiality even remotely analogous to that of the court's.

And theirs is a legitimate concern: A poll showed that nearly 80% of Wisconsinites believe the impartiality of their State courts is compromised by campaign contributions, those same Wisconsinites whose lives are affected by those courts' decisions.

When Gableman launches his inquisition against the LWVW, he's implicitly placing the court on equal terms with a political organization. Look again to his introductory proposition: "We're discussing funding [of judicial candidates] here and [public perceptions of] impartiality [on the courts]."

And then he turns those questions toward the LWVW. It's almost as if he's acknowledging that the Supreme Court is simply another political interest outfit, the same as the LWVW or Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (of whose counsel Gableman, conspicuously, never demanded any similar disclosure of specific contributors).

At — of all possible venues — a public inquiry into judicial bias.

In making a presentation to the court, the LWVW deserves a fair hearing on the merits of its petition and not a transparently political ad hominem attack from an obvious right-wing ideologue.

Whatever his politics, and to whatever organizations he chooses to distribute his money (a.k.a. speech), George Soros is an American citizen, with just as much right as anybody to support whichever causes he cares to, which is supposedly a right that Gableman and his fellow "traditionalists" on the Supreme Court support unreservedly.

In light of the fact that Gableman himself benefited from nearly $2M worth of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce largesse and tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions received from out-of-State donors, the irony of Gableman's political faux-trage and deliberately selective line of interrogation verges on the hypocritical.

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin should reconsider and decline to give Gableman the documentation he's demanded, at least until he demands the same from all of the other petitioners.

Speaking of creationists

They are, true to form, very honest and sincere people:

The copy of On the Origin of Species Ray Comfort's publisher sent me is missing no fewer than four crucial chapters, as well as Darwin's introduction.

Eugenie Scott

"Adolf Hitler put the theory of Darwinism into practice."

— Ray Comfort

Oh yes, Mein Kampf is all about natural selection.

Only one small problem:

In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)

Adolf Hitler, putting the theory of Darwinism into practice.

Interestingly, modern day creationists also want to burn Häckel.

But for all the wrong reasons, as is their usual wont.

The fact of the matter is, Adolf Hitler was every bit as offended by the idea of having been descended from an ape-like creature as is Ray Comfort, Tom DeLay, or any other standard-issue creationist.

(Whereas, that descent is considerably more of an insult not only to their various ancestral ape-like creatures but to their contemporary ape-cousins as well. At least the latter can make an honest living.)

And this is how creationists do science "education."

J-S columnist's fan base exposed

Patrick McIlheran, Kent Hovind honored as co-fabulists

"All conservative thinking is based in a principled and proven ideology": Vapor canopy theorist explains McIlheran's appeal.

(Scroll to the comments, where hilarity ensues.)

Make Pelosi speaker for life

Said Mr. Gingrich. Douglas L. Hoffman lives outside of the district, close by the remparts of the Democratic People's Republic of Québec.

Demons remove CBN Halloween column

We're sorry, the page you have requested cannot be found.

The Undertones* — Mars Bar

I have the scariest Halloween decoration in the neighborhood out on the front lawn: a Fox "News" set with Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, and Cal Thomas. Only the bravest children dare approach.

* I love these drummers.

Fox News: Attack on Jesus!

Larry's meds explain a miracle (YouTube, 5:31). I hope to Hell that Wild Bill Donohue finally gets a life once he ascends to Heaven.

(Don't tell him about "The Christ Nail.")

Study cited approvingly by study's outlier

MU professor puzzled as to why liberals ignore Glenn Beck

Couldn't be because he's a complete idiot, could it.

We already got your informed Republicans right here.

It's little wonder Prosser lit into McCabe

Some observers made note of a testy exchange Wednesday between Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and activist Mike McCabe, at the court's public hearings on rules for judicial recusals.

Justice Prosser teed off on Mr. McCabe over several items the latter had published at his "Big Money Blog," which is part of McCabe's Wisconsin Democracy Campaign project (a useful resource, btw).

The justice was annoyed — to put it mildly — by McCabe's suggestion last June that Prosser was to sit in judgment of former State legislator Scott R. Jensen's criminal appeal, even though the record clearly shows as early as the preceding February that Prosser wasn't participating in the case.

Prosser and Jensen are estwhile colleagues in the Wisconsin State Assembly, where they served consecutively as speaker.

To make matters worse, after being notified by the Supreme Court, McCabe printed a correction the next day which, instead of leaving bad enough alone, sarcastically wondered whether Prosser was planning on appearing as a "character witness" on Jensen's behalf.

(At least, I assume it was sarcastic. Either that or McCabe believes "character witnesses" regularly appear at oral arguments before the State's highest appellate court. They do not.)

While it's true that Justice Prosser was a witness during Scott Jensen's trial at Dane County in 2006, Prosser was doing so under a subpoena — that is, an order of the court — to appear. The more serious problem with McCabe's sarcasm is that he quoted from the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, in particular a passage forbidding judges from "testify[ing] voluntarily as a character witness."

McCabe's implication — at least — is that Justice Prosser violated the code of judicial conduct in 2006 and was by McCabe's insinuation preparing to violate it again in 2009. One generally needs evidence for those sort of accusations, or at least supporting documentation that someone credible has made them.

But unfortunately McCabe didn't reproduce the comment below the rule (SCR 60.03(2)), which notes, "A judge may, however, testify when properly summoned." Which is to say, there is a considerable legal (and, by extension, ethical) distinction between testifying voluntarily and testifying after having been properly summoned.

And had McCabe undertaken one of those "Google is your friend" adventures, he would have easily discovered Justice Prosser telling then-Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter Steven Walters, "I've been subpoenaed as a witness in a criminal trial, and witnesses are expected to cooperate."

Indeed, they are. At risk of contempt.

Moreover, and while I admit I don't follow these things as closely as many others do, it's not clear to me that Prosser was specifically called as a "character witness," although he reportedly fielded a question or two concerning Scott Jensen's character.

I could be mistaken, but it appears that Justice Prosser was solicited as a witness primarily to testify generally about so-called political campaigning* by lawmakers and their aides during his tenure as a Republican leader in the State Assembly.

That's another important distinction Mr. McCabe should have taken into consideration and I would distrust (both intuitively and from vast experience) any and all press descriptions of Prosser's status as a "character witness" — which is a legal term of art as it appears in the Supreme Court Rules — without more support.

I'm all for criticizing politicians (and, sad to say, judges in Wisconsin are undeniably also politicians) but when one ventures into substantive allegations, one had best do one's homework in advance.

And, unfortunately, at least one other local blog has repeated similar allegations of wrongdoing against Justice Prosser, and it's hoped that correctives are issued in light of the foregoing.

That would serve to defuse Prosser's larger point, which was that some of those who are purportedly concerned about public perception of fairness in Wisconsin courts are themselves occasionally engaged in unwarrantedly undermining that very perception. It's a fair cop.

Anyway, to make a long story even longer, I can't say I blame Justice Prosser one bit for blowing his stack at what quite obviously and evidently justifiably appear to him to be Mr. McCabe's sloppy reporting and insinuations of impropriety. So would anybody.

* I say "so-called" because there exists a reasonable difference of opinion as to what constitutes political activity within the context of attempts to codify its definition. At one end of the continuum are those whose view is that practically everything elected officials do counts as political activity. I'm sympathetic to those observations.

Which is one of the reasons why it seems to me that electing judges is not the most compelling among other potential mechanisms.

I believe I'm in alignment with the Federalists on that account (the actual, original Federalists, that is, not the "Federalist Society").

Also — Prosser and McCabe: One more thing

Even a libertarian could understand

A quick lesson in economics.

Your Bradley Foundation dollars at work

The other day Marquette University visiting professor of law Richard Esenberg enthused about how the Bradley Foundation "funds" the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, a tank where thinking is done.

The following bit of think tankery is currently on WPRI display:

Three liberals [sic] on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are ... essentially trying to get one of their colleagues un-elected. Their shady effort to force Justice Mike Gableman to recuse himself from criminal cases is merely a veiled attempt by his ideological opponents on the Court to nullify the [2008] election.

Blockbuster stuff, yes? Unfortunately, one searches in vain throughout the attendant verbiage for any support to these claims.

In reality, an attorney filed a motion with the court seeking Gableman's recusal from hearing a criminal matter. The case was scheduled for oral argument last week, on October 21.

A few days prior to that, three justices reportedly made a statement expressing a perfectly legitimate procedural concern over whether oral argument should go forward, in light of the fact that no disposition on the party's motion in the case had yet issued.

The court, on a voice vote, decided that the arguments should proceed despite the still-pending motion. One of the judges who voted to continue to the substance of the case's sentence credit issues without ruling on the motion was Michael Gableman.

He sat and listened, but refrained from question or comment.

That's about the size of it. Now if Mr. Christian Schneider of the Bradley-funded Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has any evidence whatsoever for the "shady" conspiracy which he's accusing three sitting justices of participating in, he'd probably do well to present it.

Quote of the Day

Do as I say, not as I do:

"Having been a contestant in one of those [recent] campaigns, I think there's room for improvement in the tone and tenor of campaigns." — Michael Gableman

Ya think?

"One particularly base and deceptive attack ad." — Hon. Diane Sykes
"We're sinking to new lows." — Hon. Janine Geske
"You elect Supreme Court judges?!" — Hon. Alien Visitor to Earth

Well, this sure cleared that up

Or: A rule of law, you say? Depends who's asking.

Michael Gableman: Was Caperton a unanimous decision?

Hannah Renfro:* No, it was not.

Gableman: What was the vote?

Renfro: It was a, um, a 5-4 vote, I believe.

Gableman: And were the five members of the majority able to articulate a rule that would carry forward outside of the particular facts of Caperton v. Massey Coal Company?

Renfro: No, they were not. In fact that was emphasized by the dissent.

Shirley Abrahamson: They stated no rule at all, Ms. Renfro?

Renfro: Well, they stated a rule ...

Abrahamson: They stated a rule that you might not think is effective; the dissent didn't think it's effective. But that's the purpose of a dissent, to knock it around. Right?

Renfro: Yes.

Abrahamson: So they did state a rule, right?

Renfro: Yes.

Abrahamson: And what was the rule?

Renfro: The rule in that case was that due process requires a judge to recuse where the judge's impartiality is in question. And in that case, the rule there is that a court must take into account all of the facts and the circumstances surrounding — whether it's spending or a contribution — or whatever other facts are present that are challenging that judge's ability to be impartial.**

Abrahamson: An objective, reasonable person standard.

Renfro: Yes.

Abrahamson: Not only actual bias but the appearance of bias.

Renfro: Yes.

* Attorney for the Wisconsin Realtors Association.

** Initiating the solicitation of this response was not exactly a bold strategic move by Gableman, under the circumstances. (However, his attempts at divining the shadowy presence of George Soros in the courtroom were likely a big hit with the tea ceremonialist crowd.)

The Chief Justice, on the other hand, is one sharp cookie.

Bonus Question: Was Coulee v. LIRC a unanimous decision?
Bonus Answer: What in the world difference does it make?

Why so touchy?

Justice Michael Gableman was downright hostile to the group, which says the rule is a necessary reform amid skyrocketing spending in judicial campaigns.

Gableman attacked the League of Women Voters as a left-wing group trying to limit campaign speech and have government regulators, not voters, hold judges accountable for ethical lapses. He scoffed at the idea that judges would "be willing to throw a case for $1,000."

And what's he worried about? He's been rewarded for ethical lapses.

— Janesville (WI) Gazette

I have lost confidence in the sources

'Now, I certainly can't personally vouch for the following completely unsubstantiated, anonymously-sourced heaping helping of potentially widely damaging sexual innuendo but, hey, this obscure right-wing radio guy insists it's "facts" so GET A LOAD OF THIS EVERYBODY!'

Good piece by Erik Gunn on this scurrilous feeding frenzy. Unfortunately it only identifies a couple of the Usual Puritans.

I suspect we may have seen the last time Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel calumnist Patrick McIlheran begins a sentence with, "As Dad29 says."

There's some comedy gold having to do with Charlie Sykes's dismay at "complete fabrication" in there as well. Nope, we can't have that.

Ninety percent fabrication, not a problem. That's just entertainment.

Ultimately, Lt. Gov. Lawton's stated disinclination at seeking the governorship couldn't have been more aptly demonstrated: Who would care to offer themselves up to these circling vultures.

Many of us saw it coming after Kenneth Starr's lawyers deposed the president of the United States on the appearance of his genitals. I remember watching that live on national teevee in a coffee shop at O'Hare Airport. I couldn't believe my eyes. I guess I still can't.

That would be one improvement

"If it adopts the WMC rule, the court would basically be thumbing its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court," said McCabe.

We're more used to WMC thumbing its nose at the Constitution. Another improvement would be strict adherence to the Code of Judicial Conduct. The latter shouldn't be too much to ask.

Money isn't the problem; it's the lying the money underwrites.

Armey of one dick

No, not all politics is local:

Douglas L. Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate for [New York State's] 23rd Congressional District, showed no grasp of the bread-and-butter issues pertinent to district residents in a Thursday morning meeting with the Watertown Daily Times editorial board.

In a nearly hour-long session, Mr. Hoffman was unable to articulate clear positions on a number of matters specific to Northern New Yorkers rather than the national level campaign being waged in a three-way race for the vacant seat of now-Army Secretary John McHugh.

Coming to Mr. Hoffman's defense, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who accompanied the candidate on a campaign swing, dismissed regional concerns as "parochial" issues that would not determine the outcome of the election.

parochial, adj. : of or relating to NY's 23rd Cong. Dist.

Read the Daily Times's previous day's editorial. Hoffman complained because he hadn't been provided the board's questions in advance.

The best interview question ever

Do you believe that your Galactic Emperor called Xenu brought his people to Earth 75 million years ago and buried them in volcanoes? Do you believe that? — Martin Bashir

ABC News Nightline (Play Tommy Davis off, Keyboard Cat!)

What if Bashir got to sit down with the Pope.

WTAQ: All you need to know

Check out this veritable Mount Rushmore of liars and buffoons:

Pictured: 1320-AM WTAQ's stable of on-air "personalities." All the greats.

Stay classy, radio wingnuts. And, more to the alleged point, MYOFB.

eta: The Chief is not amused (and rightly so).

Rep. Barrett voted yes to 2000 abortion ban

Directly contrary to what you will hear from local conservatives:

Dad29:* Does voting FOR partial-birth abortion count? Because [then-Congressman Tom Barrett] did so.

Kilkenny: I did confirm the partial-birth abortion vote Barrett made. That’s pretty damning.

Remarkably, Kilkenny's own link also clearly records Barrett having



That's what's pretty damning.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett hasn't even decided whether to run for Wisconsin governor, and the local wingers are fabricating his record already. You'd think they might at least wait until he does decide.

But evidently they just can't help themselves. Or else they got confused by the presence of two alternate Barretts** in the 106th Congress. Either way, it doesn't look real good for the over-enthusiastic wingers' credibility, does it. Nor, sadly, is it surprising in the least. Hell, even Republican judges do it.

Maybe that's what made it respectable.

h/t WisOpinion.

* A widely trusted source, where "widely" = Patrick McIlheran.
** Our Barrett voted with the "longtime Republican activist."

Newt the Magic RINO

GOP will eat itself.

What does that say for Newt's Scott Walker cheerleading, if the ideologically pure detect a taint in Mr. Newt's endorsements.

I caught a bit of this Doug Hoffman's act on Faux News last night. He sounded just like some guy addressing a convention of actuaries.

You know what an actuary is, right? An actuary is somebody who didn't have enough personality to become an accountant.