Thursday, September 08, 2011

Murphy's take on the law not quite right

I was in Madison for the first day of the state Supreme Court's 2011-2012 term, arguing on behalf of the petitioners in Wisconsin Prosperity Network v. Myse. I am happy to report that the Court was fully able to function as a court with the Justices, who seemed well informed, attending to arguments and asking questions. Perhaps the rest of us can focus a bit more on the law and a little less on the drama.

But before I go, I see that Bruce Murphy is just not impressed with Ann Althouse and me. He thinks we apparently had no basis for criticizing Bill Lueders early report of the incident between Justices Bradley and Prosser and think events have somehow vindicated that view.

Here's the thing. Lueders' report was superseded within a few hours by a much more comprehensive report by the Journal Sentinel that placed the incident in an entirely different light and, as it turned out, was a far more accurate description of the event. Although Murphy says I failed to marshall facts in support of my criticism, the conclusion that offends him was immediately preceded by an argument that the almost contemporaneous reports of the view of more than one witness were much different than Lueders' initial report.

Of course, I am not saying that Lueders is a bad reporter. People in a position to know speak well of him. I just thought that this report seemed to be rushed out and was almost immediately shown to be incomplete.

In the same piece, Murphy reports some old news from a very good reporter, David Ziemer at the Wisconsin Law Journal, to the effect that Justice Crooks often joins with the conservative majority and, therefore, people who claim that there is a 4 to 3 liberal split are dumb, piling on Professor Althouse again.

I agree that Justice Crooks is less firmly in either camp than some of the others, but you have to look at a much smaller subset of cases to address the "liberal" v. "conservative" issue since not all cases present an occasion for that divide and, in some, it is much more salient than in others. Depending on how you define that universe cases, the description of a 4-3 split - while always only a rough approximation of a complicated reality - makes some sense.

Of course, I always try to qualify identification of judges as "conservative" or "liberal." These descriptions are not wrong but they aren't the same as when used in a nonjudicial context. They don't necessarily lead to results favored by the conservative or liberal political camp and judges operate in a far more constrained environment than politicians.

But Althouse and others are not wrong when they speak of a 4-3 split and no lawyer who actually practices public law in this state would dispute it.

6 comments:

gnarlytrombone said...

Lueders' report was superseded within a few hours by a much more comprehensive report by the Journal Sentinel

What, no mad propes for the "indispensable" Christian Schneider for getting Gableman's flawed description of where Prosser's hands were relative to the lumps on Bradley's chest?

John Foust said...

Standard Contradictory Disclaimer™: Of course, I am not saying that Lueders is a bad reporter. People in a position to know speak well of him. I just thought that this report seemed to be rushed out and was almost immediately shown to be incomplete. Because the good reporters rush out the incomplete stories?

What Would Prof. Esenberg Do if his client said things like "Except when suddenly if you don't have the opportunity to think about it and you're reacting, and that's what happened to me".

Tom said...

Justice Crooks is firmly in the liberal minority on most civil cases and all cases that are ideologically controversial. However he is firmly in the conservative majority on virtually all criminal cases. He does not join the chief and Bradley in their continual attempts to expand the rights of criminal defendants. In fact, Prosser is more likely to be in dissent on a criminal case than Crooks over the past few years.

Anonymous said...

I understand the conservative vs. liberal arguments but its time to make a change to Justices and Judges who represent the people...as intended by our founders.

Anonymous said...

Don't be naive, Herr Professor. Why do you think the second story came out so quickly after the Lueders story appeared? Why couldn't Lueders get it in the first place?

These folks who put out the second story declined to speak to Lueders.

This isn't an indictment of Lueder at all. Frankly, you've reduced yourself to nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. It is as if you have lost all measure of objectivity. I hope that you are adequately compensated for the loss of your objectivity. Nothing is as black and white as it appears in your slanted world.

Anonymous said...

Hi there I am so excited I found your web site, I
really found you by error, while I was researching on Askjeeve for something else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to
say kudos for a incredible post and a all round entertaining blog (I
also love the theme/design), I don't have time to browse it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the fantastic job.

Feel free to visit my weblog ... cheap legal highs