tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post2395503109226895831..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Recount FolliesRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-56308302751607468102011-04-28T12:44:47.360-05:002011-04-28T12:44:47.360-05:00Don't know why I even bothered.Don't know why I even bothered.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-62777061056226354452011-04-28T10:42:50.717-05:002011-04-28T10:42:50.717-05:00Careful! When cornered, Wolverine Dad29 will alwa...Careful! When cornered, Wolverine Dad29 will always resort to quoting chapter and verse of his Natural Law.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-12409572949570735162011-04-27T23:19:25.976-05:002011-04-27T23:19:25.976-05:00Whatevs Pops. You're hopeless.Whatevs Pops. You're hopeless.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31538804672003462772011-04-27T11:55:21.340-05:002011-04-27T11:55:21.340-05:00No, Illy.
I'll stick with the black-letter st...No, Illy.<br /><br />I'll stick with the black-letter stuff that you do your best to ignore.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1809791669044682102011-04-26T15:42:35.226-05:002011-04-26T15:42:35.226-05:00Dad sez: And then there's 19.87(2).
Been ther...Dad sez: <i>And then there's 19.87(2).</i><br /><br />Been there <a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/03/law-profs-wing-nuts-gone-noticeably.html" rel="nofollow">weeks ago</a>. Try to keep up willya.<br /><br />04/26illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-33690883967145777382011-04-26T14:08:40.183-05:002011-04-26T14:08:40.183-05:00Robed government... Watch out! The Illinois lice...<i>Robed government...</i> Watch out! The Illinois license plates are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEOcE9gFxjA" rel="nofollow">bringing the FOUR BLACK-ROBED MASTERS</a>!Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-75019631061738358962011-04-26T11:11:57.480-05:002011-04-26T11:11:57.480-05:00But black-letter dispositives
Legalspeak becomes ...<i>But black-letter dispositives</i><br /><br />Legalspeak becomes you about as well Trump's skull merkin.gnarlytrombonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-81669459662041154282011-04-26T10:59:23.992-05:002011-04-26T10:59:23.992-05:00And then there's 19.87(2)
But black-letter di...And then there's 19.87(2)<br /><br />But black-letter dispositives don't apply because.....well......because it's a Living Document.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1914672749570270552011-04-25T22:37:30.732-05:002011-04-25T22:37:30.732-05:00-------Cue the statement about the Peoples Republi...-------Cue the statement about the Peoples Republic of Madistan, and how there are no laws, yadda yadda yadda.----<br /><br />What do we need a legislature for if a County Mountie (oops judge) can direct that they may not publish a law? Looks like we could save a lot of money to just have a robed government. <br /><br />I think you elitist lawyers overvalue yourselves.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333132048552751053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-52090900483236283252011-04-25T15:45:48.942-05:002011-04-25T15:45:48.942-05:00...any judgment declaring such action void shall n...<i>...any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs <b>any public interest</b> which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken</i><br /><br />19.93 rules.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-62616108173853982652011-04-25T12:11:22.415-05:002011-04-25T12:11:22.415-05:00I would guess Da Shark hasn't chimed in yet be...I would guess Da Shark hasn't chimed in yet because he's still working on his definition of "political operative".Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-4454263617762867162011-04-24T21:29:20.692-05:002011-04-24T21:29:20.692-05:00Big Daddy Kane
I'm pretty sure many people th...Big Daddy Kane<br /><br />I'm pretty sure many people thought she could issue a TRO, since you know, she did. <br /><br />Cue the statement about the Peoples Republic of Madistan, and how there are no laws, yadda yadda yadda. IT'S LAWLESS THERE!!! JUST LAWLESS!!!This DJhttp://djherbertwalker@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-15573733846172890942011-04-24T21:15:32.998-05:002011-04-24T21:15:32.998-05:00Wis. Stat. § Dad(29): [N]o one with half a gourd w...Wis. Stat. § Dad(29): [N]o one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO against a law which is not actually a law, either.<br /><br />Wis. Stat. § 19.97(2): [T]he district attorney may commence an action ... to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, <b>injunction</b> or declaratory judgment ...<br /><br />Why, it's unthinkable!<br /><br />You're funny Dad.<br /><br />04/24/11illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-79838394257482473882011-04-24T20:58:19.811-05:002011-04-24T20:58:19.811-05:00No one with half a gourd believes them
Correction...<i>No one with half a gourd believes them</i><br /><br />Correction: no one with half a gourd WANTS to believe them.<br /><br />But then, no one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO against a law which is not actually a law, either.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-77047954505406951642011-04-24T15:00:59.916-05:002011-04-24T15:00:59.916-05:00Well Daddio,
Dates are important, however what i...Well Daddio, <br /><br />Dates are important, however what is today's date?<br /><br />April 24th, 2011. It becomes vacant on August 1, 2011 if there is not a certified winner. <br /><br />I'm also not a mathematician but that's 98 days. <br /><br />If they want to throw out Sumi's ruling there is ample time for that action if the court has the drive for it. <br /><br />This recount has not a damn thing to do with that, and constructing lame straw men doesn't serve any purpose either because here's a hint. No one with half a gourd believes them.This DJhttp://djherbertwalker@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-34057502403626886262011-04-24T12:11:07.887-05:002011-04-24T12:11:07.887-05:00I have, from Prof. Rick ...
Well, good for you gu...<i>I have, from Prof. Rick ...</i><br /><br />Well, good for you guys. You might find it interesting that Prof. Rick's watershed, controlling precedent, <i>Goodland v. Zimmerman</i>, barely makes an appearance in the Huebsch petition for a supervisory writ. Instead, the petition focuses primarily on <i>La Follette v. Stitt</i>. <br /><br />You want to know why? Because the facts and law at issue in <i>Ozanne v. Fitzgerald</i> precisely describe that situation which <i>Stitt</i> repeatedly insists it does not cover. Go read <i>Stitt</i> (it's online), and see how quickly you lose count of the "excepts" and the "unlesses." In other words, <i>Stitt</i> is unavailing, and JBVH knows it, as is <i>Lynch v. Conta</i> and as is <i>MJS v. Wis. DoA</i>, but we (and District IV) knew that already.<br /><br /><i>Grandes problemos</i>, Daddy-O. You'll see (maybe). By the way this business is all constitutional law and statutory construction, which you don't need 20 years experience taking depositions to evaluate. And there's plenty of other pretty sharp cookies among the Marquette law faculty who haven't practiced a whole hell of a lot of law.<br /><br /><i>No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.</i><br /><br />Except Judge Sumi hasn't done that. What do you think the briefing schedule is for? Besides, the convincing argument is sitting up right there among the black letter constitutional and statutory provisions. Have a look-see, Pops.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-69995230037084460582011-04-24T11:45:25.507-05:002011-04-24T11:45:25.507-05:00"No one has put forth a convincing argument t..."No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain."<br /><br />Then, Dad29, you haven't been closely paying attention!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-53375935594317135272011-04-24T11:18:50.368-05:002011-04-24T11:18:50.368-05:00I've yet to see a convincing substantive criti...<i>I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.</i><br /><br />I have, from Prof. Rick, who actually practiced law for quite some time--successfully.<br /><br />As to Sumi: she gets the respect that she earns. No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.<br /><br />DJ, Prosser's seat goes vacant 8/1 unless a winner is declared before then. Dates are important, DJ.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-81680220878820153122011-04-24T09:04:39.857-05:002011-04-24T09:04:39.857-05:00Just so everyone's on the same page. There is...Just so everyone's on the same page. There isn't a vacancy on the court. <br /><br />You don't VACATE your position when running for reelection. <br /><br />I'm not a constitutional scholar, I don't even play one on tv, however the American System is not that complicated folks.This DJhttp://djherbertwalker@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-63712186484288987052011-04-24T08:24:09.768-05:002011-04-24T08:24:09.768-05:00By the way, Dad, have you had a gander at Judge Su...By the way, Dad, have you had a gander at Judge Sumi's record on appeal? <a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-do-you-know-but-it-was-patrick.html" rel="nofollow">Here, let me show you it</a>.<br /><br />04/24/11illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-35020855009938039712011-04-24T08:18:38.800-05:002011-04-24T08:18:38.800-05:00We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG&...<i>We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet.</i><br /><br />Right, but there is no appeals court "ruling." There was the DoJ's District IV appeal, which the latter kicked upstairs, and the DoJ's ability to effectively represent its plaintiff secretary of state appears to be irretrievably broken. So that thing is dead in the water (maybe Cathy Stepp could fish it out). And there is Mike Huebsch's petition for a supervisory writ, also filed by the DoJ, a terribly unconvincing document, I'm sorry to tell you.<br /><br /><i>You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?</i><br /><br />I don't expect them to, unless they want to rule the Open Meetings Law unconstitutional, at least insofar as it applies to the express prohibition on the sufficiency of the Fitzes 1hr and 57m meeting notice (why wasn't Jeff Fitz in his office, by the way, when the witching hour was imminent? That's probably the biggest FUBAR in this entire escapade). But I would like to see the court declare the OML unconstitutional, for sheer entertainment at least. Imagine all of those restraintful, conservative jurisprudes "unmooring" themselves from the plain text and relying instead on Cromwell-era common law. What fun.<br /><br />By the way, Daddy-O, you and your wing-right pals really need to stop criticizing Judge Sumi with your goofball <i>ad hominem</i> japes, as they embarrass nobody but you all (but of course you can keep it up for the pure entertainment value as well). What it tells people who have read the law (beyond Prof. Rick's "publication that is sent to schoolchildren," that is) that you've got nothing *but* <i>ad hominem</i> fallacies. I've yet to see a convincing <i>substantive</i> criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.<br /><br />04/24/11illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-41982631848363227492011-04-23T19:29:35.640-05:002011-04-23T19:29:35.640-05:00What Madison appeals court ruling?
We note that S...<i>What Madison appeals court ruling?</i><br /><br />We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet.<br /><br />You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-9707477315911569632011-04-23T13:43:17.711-05:002011-04-23T13:43:17.711-05:00shut up the tin foil crowd
Hear that Dad?<i>shut up the tin foil crowd</i><br /><br />Hear that Dad?illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-80616522470193872142011-04-23T13:28:20.066-05:002011-04-23T13:28:20.066-05:00What Madison appeals court ruling?What Madison appeals court ruling?illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-25188987633139001492011-04-23T11:58:45.388-05:002011-04-23T11:58:45.388-05:00Well, Rick...
A month or so ago it was clear that...Well, Rick...<br /><br />A month or so ago it was clear that Sumi's kangaroo-ing was designed to delay a decision. That delay would result in SCOWI review of the case after Prosser was out, i.e., after August 1st.<br /><br />Of course, Kloppenburg had to win.<br /><br />Oh, well.<br /><br />The backup plan is now in play. Kloppy requests a recount, which will take a long time. As of 8/1, SCOWI becomes a 3-3 tie (at least in theory, but Abrahamson has counted her chickens very carefully.)<br /><br />Ergo, a Madison Appeals court ruling will stand.<br /><br />Kloppy's just roadkill here. It's the vacancy on SCOWI that counts.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com