tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post4314977840577162737..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Throw down at the Supreme CourtRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-29440625752150615912007-04-27T10:48:00.000-05:002007-04-27T10:48:00.000-05:00Prosser's statement that the court did "not care" ...Prosser's statement that the court did "not care" about the legal rights of a party or the legitimacy of an election is, in context, and especially when coming from a justice and not a columnist or pundit, an accusation that the court knowingly flouted its duty and got to a result it knew was wrong, if only by inaction. In the judicial setting, this is akin to corruption.<BR/><BR/>Also, his business about it not being a "great court" when discussing a case in which the court basically held the state together, is another accusation that it is knowingly doing wrong.<BR/><BR/>I myself think Green should have been heard in a timely fashion and think it would have been a close case.<BR/><BR/>But, the tone and language of Prosser's opinion is simply unprofessional and bad for the court as an institution. Stated differently, if a jurist cannot register very strong disagreement without angrily accusing the majority of improper motive, s/he has a real skill deficit.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I have generally found Prosser to be an impressive justice. <BR/><BR/>anon-1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-43018063231425589412007-04-27T07:13:00.000-05:002007-04-27T07:13:00.000-05:00I think it's a false premise that Green would have...I think it's a false premise that Green would have won if the Court acted prior to the election because we still don't know how the court would have ruled. <BR/><BR/>It would have been good to know how the Supreme Court would have ruled rather than this stipulated dismissal. <BR/><BR/>Anon 2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-73457526718576547332007-04-26T13:35:00.000-05:002007-04-26T13:35:00.000-05:00Perhaps Anon would offer specific language that h/...Perhaps Anon would offer specific language that h/she thinks would make Prosser's point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-48580051704787571032007-04-26T12:23:00.000-05:002007-04-26T12:23:00.000-05:00Actually, I read plenty. While Scalia, in particu...Actually, I read plenty. While Scalia, in particular, can be aserbic and, as many think, inappropriately bitter, he rarely accuses the court of being corrupt as Prosser basicall did.<BR/><BR/>And Steve, I think the court screwed this one up and that Prosser, in substance is correct. I just think his opinion was unprofessional and reflects poorly on the court as an institution.<BR/><BR/>anon-1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-89739886699359368772007-04-26T11:27:00.000-05:002007-04-26T11:27:00.000-05:00Anon - I take it you don't read too many SCOTUS de...Anon - I take it you don't read too many SCOTUS decisions. You often find Prosser's language in the dissents.<BR/><BR/>Rick - I can tell you exactly what changed between the fall of 2006 and December 2006 - Doyle won re-election, so there was no longer any need for the SEB or the majority of the Supreme Court to deny the facts.steveegghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12374669417627943743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-15226894257579003722007-04-26T11:11:00.000-05:002007-04-26T11:11:00.000-05:00While I understand Prosser's frustration and conce...While I understand Prosser's frustration and concern, his opinion was totally uncivil and injudicious. <BR/><BR/>He could and should have made his point with more appropriate and less name-calley language. A lawyer who wrote like that would face sanctions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com