tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post5538243125371344926..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: The Neverending Supreme Court ElectionRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-55955041541689281492010-02-16T14:25:18.637-06:002010-02-16T14:25:18.637-06:00Greetings,
I just have a quick question for you b...Greetings,<br /><br />I just have a quick question for you but couldn't find an email so had to resort to this. I am a progressive blogger and the owner of the mahablog. Please email me back at barbaraobrien@maacenter.org when you get a chance. Thanks.<br /><br />BarbaraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-72219430193640874202010-02-16T12:07:07.615-06:002010-02-16T12:07:07.615-06:00I think that you are conflating the questions of d...I think that you are conflating the questions of discipline and recusal. In the hypo you propose, you would probably be liable to me for defamation of character - assuming that I was not, in fact, in the company of a - I believe the term is - sex worker.<br /><br />You may or may not have a defense depending on whether you could show I was a public figure and that you did not act with knowledge of the falsity of your statement or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.<br /><br />The question in Allen is not whether Justice Gableman lied. That is an issue in the disciplinary proceeding. The issue here is whether he has demonstrated a bias such that his recusal is mandated.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-41158033274603247402010-02-16T10:43:30.644-06:002010-02-16T10:43:30.644-06:00Denise? I thought she was a lobbyist.Denise? I thought she was a lobbyist.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-13199166140707762232010-02-16T10:18:11.026-06:002010-02-16T10:18:11.026-06:00Rick, does it not at least bother you a little tha...Rick, does it not at least bother you a little that two of the three Justices claiming that the Court as a whole does not have the authority to protect its legitimacy by ordering recusal (a conclusion contrary to clear authority from the 1800s holding that it has not only the authority but the obligation to do so), have a direct personal interest in the decision? Justice Roggansak currently is facing a motion to the Court as a whole challenging her failure to recuse herself on statutory grounds and Justice Ziegler likely again will face a challenge where WMC's interests are at stake. The third, Justice Prosser, is up for election next year and no doubt hopes to be in the same position as Justice Ziegler when it comes to WMC's larges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-29732227527167729582010-02-16T09:59:48.495-06:002010-02-16T09:59:48.495-06:00Rick's response to Anon is helpful. Grant see...Rick's response to Anon is helpful. Grant seems to be asking for help.George Mitchellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-13765997657726723772010-02-16T07:28:23.522-06:002010-02-16T07:28:23.522-06:00Here's a hypothetical. I write a blog post con...Here's a hypothetical. I write a blog post containing the statement "Rick Esenberg is a hypocrite when it comes to marital fidelity. Just last week he was seen entering the Hotel Astor with a known prostitute."<br /><br />"How dare, you, sir," you insist. "You are an unprincipled scoundrel."<br /><br />I reply, "Everything in that post is factually correct. You criticized David Vitter and Larry Craig and did not criticize Bill Clinton and John Edwards. And last week I saw you walk into the Hotel Astor at the same time as Denise Herbelgrozten. I have photos. You may not know who she is, but she is indeed a prostitute."<br /><br />I move on to my next post, "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=mickey+kaus+goats" rel="nofollow">Rick Esenberg: the case of the Charnequeira</a>." I have a hard time believing you would think the remedy would be more speech.Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17160568834659305520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-66559785422005322492010-02-16T07:04:34.236-06:002010-02-16T07:04:34.236-06:00Anon
That's certainly the argument that the C...Anon<br /><br />That's certainly the argument that the Chief Justice made. But Justices Roggensack, Prosser and Ziegler apparently do not believe that the remedy for an unconstitutional failure to recuse is removal by peer Justices. Allen could, in their view, raise such a claim in a cert petition.<br /><br />This raises a couple of interesting questions. Justices Roggensack, Prosser and Ziegler also made clear that they didn't think Allen's claim was no where near Caperton which they read (correctly, I think) as requiring, at least in this case, a particularized bias based in a Justice's self interest. If Allen had made such a claim, would they have subjected a refusal to step aside to plenary review by the entire Court. The writings suggest not.<br /><br />And what, if anything, does this tell us about the view of these three justices on the ability of the Court to remove a Justice for violating the Judicial Code. Perhaps they would argue that there is a standard there that is absent here.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-36069689603983181592010-02-15T10:52:21.055-06:002010-02-15T10:52:21.055-06:00They know it when they see it and they are sure th...<i>They know it when they see it and they are sure they have seen it</i><br /><br />It's not that flippin' difficult. We've had an <a href="http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/syllogisms/enthymeme.htm" rel="nofollow">objective means</a> of evaluating this form of BS for 25 centuries.Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17160568834659305520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-76747189839017359442010-02-15T09:50:06.810-06:002010-02-15T09:50:06.810-06:00The issue is whether judicial bias is a justiciabl...The issue is whether judicial bias is a justiciable issue, one that can be decided by judges other than the one accused of having it. Caperton would appear to decide that issue squarely in favor of justiciability. The dissenting justices in Caperton complained that the issue was not judicially manageable. They lost. Bound as it is by the United States Supreme Court on questions of federal law, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is obligated to decide whether or not allowing Justice Gableman to hear criminal cases would deprive criminal defendants of due process. How it decides that question is another issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com