tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post1340314494901129153..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: It's not getting any betterRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-68444118304193946752008-03-25T11:47:00.000-05:002008-03-25T11:47:00.000-05:00I was happy to see both the La Crosse Tribune and ...I was happy to see both the La Crosse Tribune and the Green Bay Press Gazette endorsed Justice Butler. The Green Bay Press Gazette is all the more pleasing, since the editors finally read the lead-paint decision and finally realized what is plainly true: it is not an activist opinion; it is faithfully premised on precedent, Collins v. Eli Lilly; and, in fact, the Collins opinion is quoted almost in its entirety throughout the Thomas opinion. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-17124922322377651282008-03-25T10:45:00.000-05:002008-03-25T10:45:00.000-05:00I was happy to see that the WSJournal has decided ...I was happy to see that the WSJournal has decided not to endorse Butler.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-51265832591936058852008-03-25T10:01:00.000-05:002008-03-25T10:01:00.000-05:00Dad29, the conservative blogs are full of people w...Dad29, the conservative blogs are <A HREF="http://www.bootsandkittens.com" REL="nofollow">full of people</A> who share the political philosophy that Gableman constantly wink-winks about. Does that make them qualified for the Supreme Court? I've said several times that, for example, Prof. Esenberg is arguably a more qualified candidate for the Court than Gableman. My question remains. Do you think Gableman's qualifications and resume indicate that he's good enough for the Court? Or does politics matter more?<BR/><BR/>As for numbers, even while repeatedly flogging the numbers in order to have something to distract the masses, Prof. Esenberg has laid out a number of hedge statements to allow that these statistics are nearly worthless except as semi-random integers. Start from a statistical standpoint, with such a small data set. Ignore realities such as trends of errors in the lower courts, trends in law enforcement tactics, changes in society, changes in new statutes never tested, cases they declined, and the complex legal questions and human situations. But yes, we can know to two decimal places that someone isn't tough on crime! (And in that, I'll decry the ridiculousness of commercials on both sides.)<BR/><BR/>There's a voice in my head that's saying something about the <I>quality of math education in gummint-run skoolz</I> but it must just be the <A HREF="http://texasholdemblogger.com" REL="nofollow">THEB</A> again.<BR/><BR/>Disclaimer: No one paid me to have this opinion or withhold this opinion.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-4511596842881187382008-03-25T00:23:00.000-05:002008-03-25T00:23:00.000-05:00First, the campaign has included a number of cases...<I>First, the campaign has included a number of cases involving civil commitments ...</I><BR/><BR/>Two. <BR/><BR/>One of them, <I>State v. Richard A. Brown</I>, has been used repeatedly to attack Justice Butler.<BR/><BR/>Do you seriously expect him not to make reference to it in his defense?<BR/><BR/>The other, <I>State v. Bush</I>, is about as "anti-criminal" as it gets.<BR/><BR/>Do you seriously expect Butler not cite this case in defense of the scurrilous attacks against his record?<BR/><BR/><I>or adjudications of delinquency, in which there was no conviction at all.</I><BR/><BR/>Adjudication, singular. There is but one juvenile case on that list. And you yourself have used it to criticize Justice Butler.<BR/><BR/>Do you seriously expect him to not make reference to it in his defense?<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you one more time: Who exactly is it that's "sniping around the edges" on this issue?<BR/><BR/>I'll have more. Much more. Stay tuned.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38745537891272633332008-03-24T23:57:00.000-05:002008-03-24T23:57:00.000-05:00as confused as his ciphering of cases ... I think ...<I>as confused as his ciphering of cases ... I think you understand the importance of numbers, right?</I><BR/><BR/>Will you promise to let us all know how delicious those words tasted in a day or two?illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-14509262629864181822008-03-24T21:41:00.000-05:002008-03-24T21:41:00.000-05:00Foust, I'm not screening candidates for a position...Foust, I'm not screening candidates for a position.<BR/><BR/>I'm voting for or against a philosophy (in this case.)<BR/><BR/>And if Loophole's philosophy is as confused as his ciphering of cases, then I'll take Gableman's.<BR/><BR/>I think you understand the importance of numbers, John, right?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-79001298881542193172008-03-24T16:42:00.000-05:002008-03-24T16:42:00.000-05:00My e-mail is richard.esenberg@marquette.eduMy e-mail is richard.esenberg@marquette.eduRick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-41551270172257931052008-03-24T15:40:00.000-05:002008-03-24T15:40:00.000-05:00I know this doesn't have anything to do with the n...I know this doesn't have anything to do with the numbers but wasn't there a case pending in the lower court in Madison challenging the marriage amendment. <BR/><BR/>Now, where do we think Butler would be on that issue if it comes before the court. <BR/><BR/>I think Butler was quoted as saying in the Sunday MJournal that he's trying to turn the nation in the right direction. That sounds rather activist to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-63060085561735969272008-03-24T14:48:00.000-05:002008-03-24T14:48:00.000-05:00Rick, how can I contact you?Rick, how can I contact you?GreatDeleuzionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158735065193105647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-16188960076710645852008-03-24T14:38:00.000-05:002008-03-24T14:38:00.000-05:00Anon 2:22--only a fool knows a fool.Anon 2:22--only a fool knows a fool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-64809156116101086472008-03-24T14:22:00.000-05:002008-03-24T14:22:00.000-05:00Foust...you're a fool!Foust...you're a fool!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-55364542829813900132008-03-24T11:13:00.000-05:002008-03-24T11:13:00.000-05:00Foust. . .you're good!Foust. . .you're good!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-60871043524876688012008-03-24T10:25:00.000-05:002008-03-24T10:25:00.000-05:00OK, Dad29 - pretend you're accepting resumes for t...OK, Dad29 - pretend you're accepting resumes for the job opening. You get Butler's and Gableman's. Who gets to the next round, based on qualifications?<BR/><BR/>Or, if I wanted to be more accurate, I guess Gableman wouldn't even send his resume, he'd just make some calls and campaign contributions to your boss, and then you'd be told to give him the job.<BR/><BR/>Oh, wait! I forgot. This blog is about the issues and legal fine points, not about endorsing anyone in the race.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-17869634285888592732008-03-24T09:11:00.000-05:002008-03-24T09:11:00.000-05:00It's beginning to look like either:1) Butler does...It's beginning to look like either:<BR/><BR/>1) Butler doesn't have a clue about his rulings, or<BR/><BR/>2) Butler's campaign staff doesn't have a clue about his rulings.<BR/><BR/>Either way, Loophole has a problem, Houston.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com