tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post693117601978390231..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: The Caperton ProblemRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-32280780348316981492011-04-07T01:24:45.409-05:002011-04-07T01:24:45.409-05:00Debbie is a smart, hard-worki¬ng dynamo. She is th...Debbie is a smart, hard-worki¬ng dynamo. She is the perfect fit to help lead our party. Whoever ends up being the Republican presidenti¬al nominee will come to regret that Debbie was tapped for this job.Atlanta Roofinghttp://tiny.cc/yzwq2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-30163766508275668232011-04-06T17:11:11.966-05:002011-04-06T17:11:11.966-05:00According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule on r...According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule on recusal, if it is a legal contribution, there is no need for recusal. There is no allegation that the contributions to a 504(c)(4) are illegal. Therefore, no problem in Wisconsin.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08929658182197383965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-45008368161880254592011-04-06T11:11:33.020-05:002011-04-06T11:11:33.020-05:00Nick
As I said on WPR tonight, you have to hold t...Nick<br /><br />As I said on WPR tonight, you have to hold the ideas of impartiality and perspective in your mind at the same time. Saying you are conservative is not the same as saying that you will support Scott Walker or vote to overturn the budget repair bill - or hinting at those results.<br /><br />Beyond that, there is a difference between saying you have a perspective and getting the support of people who share that perspective and getting elected behind a particular case. I could go on - indeed I have a recently published scholarly article on Caperton and I am critical of the decison - but believe me she would have a Caperton problem if she wins. I'm not saying that it should go one way or the other. But if you take that case seriously, there is an issue. eginning to look unlikely.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-9012941377004479222011-04-06T10:52:23.583-05:002011-04-06T10:52:23.583-05:00I am truly puzzled that Prosser could benefit from...I am truly puzzled that Prosser could benefit from $1.4-million in spending by WMC, which clearly has an interest in the budget review bill, but we are talking about a Caperton problem for Kloppenburg?xoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08846380556286798188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-90106654898156752212011-04-06T08:42:41.413-05:002011-04-06T08:42:41.413-05:00Let's vote on whether unions represent the wor...Let's vote on whether unions represent the working class. Wisconsin has a referendum. Let the people decide and not one man who never ran on this issue in the first place. Are you guys afraid of something?seo ottawahttp://www.excelwith.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-57667316902965693892011-04-06T07:57:28.706-05:002011-04-06T07:57:28.706-05:00Did George just fall off the cabbage truck?Did George just fall off the cabbage truck?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-39087824818130485272011-04-05T17:28:28.739-05:002011-04-05T17:28:28.739-05:00"Our campaign efforts will include building a..."Our campaign efforts will include building an organization that will return Justice Prosser to the bench, protecting the conservative judicial majority and acting as a common sense compliment [sic] to both the new administration and legislature."<br /><br />He's the campaign manager. Duh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-67704230750510653702011-04-05T17:04:41.519-05:002011-04-05T17:04:41.519-05:00Pls provide the campaign mgr's statement and a...Pls provide the campaign mgr's statement and any evidence that he speaks for prosserGeo mitchellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-59576565958541382702011-04-05T16:15:59.556-05:002011-04-05T16:15:59.556-05:00Puh-leez. Prosser's campaign manager says he&...Puh-leez. Prosser's campaign manager says he'll be Walker's man on the Supreme Court, and it's Kloppenburg who's got the Caperton problem? And Prosser might vote to affirm Judge Sumi? Have ye taken complete leave of your senses, man? In your further flight of fancy, you imagine this case wending its way before Justice Kloppenburg next fall, and from thence to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Walker and the brothers Fitz stubbornly refuse a do-over. Walker says the budget repair bill would save the State $30 million by this summer and $300 million in the next two years, while it would save local governments $724 million in the next year. Is it the principle of the thing that's at stake? Or are the votes not there for the do-over?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-57365540504319835552011-04-05T15:11:10.068-05:002011-04-05T15:11:10.068-05:00Justice Prosser's "complement" comme...Justice Prosser's "complement" comment was a mistake that I think he has acknowledged. Much more relevant are the several hundred decisions in which he has participated, establishing him as a judge who is hard to typecast. I am unaware of any rulings that Kloppenburg has objected to; perhaps there are some.<br /><br />More to the point, if Kloppenburg is elected no reasonable observer will deny that it was due to the active support of groups with a specific agenda and a specific expectation of how she might rule. That is her "Caperton" problem. Justice Prosser, on the other hand, will not have a Caperton problem. <br /><br />The Caperton decision, by the way, is regrettable.<br /><br />I once shared Nick's view that it was no big deal if judges tip their hand. As a matter of free speech, I think they have the right to do that. But I was sternly lectured by a current and highly respected judge on the matter. This jurist said that while a judge might have the right to say something it was highly inappropriate to do anything beyond (1) citing one's actual record in decided cases and (2) explaining one's general judicial philosophy. This advice seems to make a lot of sense.George Mitchellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-6958115336916929052011-04-05T11:29:59.321-05:002011-04-05T11:29:59.321-05:00"Winking" isn't a form of speech?
A..."Winking" isn't a form of speech?<br /><br />A campaign manager's first press release saying the candidate will be a complement to Walker isn't a wink? More a nod? A dog-whistle to the annointed?Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-32416693669514006742011-04-05T11:00:23.113-05:002011-04-05T11:00:23.113-05:00Of course, isn't this one of the reasons why w...Of course, isn't this one of the reasons why we ELECT instead of appoint judges? In a post a couple months ago regarding the "Candor" of Prosser, you stated:<br /><br />"Judicial candidates who claim the mantle of restraint also tend to tell us how they will exercise whatever amount of discretion they have. They claim to be "conservatives" so that, it turns out, we know that when they feel free or compelled to make ideological judgments they will do so from a more conservative perspective. So Justice David Prosser tells us that he is a champion of judicial restraint. I think that he is. But he also tells us that he is a conservative.<br />...<br />But they don't tell us how they see things. We know, for example, that candidates such as Marla Stephens and Joanne Kloppenburg have problems with the current conservative majority on the Court. But they won't match Prosser's candor. They won't tell us that they are liberals."<br /><br />So if we are to encourage candidates to tell us whether they are liberal or conservative, then why is it a problem (or a surprise) that liberal groups, or conservative groups, would then support them.<br /><br />And in fact, if the point of a justice being candid about their view is to encourage people to vote for them because they want that view upheld on the court, then why is any of this a problem?<br /><br />If a majority of Wisconsinites vote for Kloppenburg, and it is their understanding that doing so would mean she rules against the Collective Bargaining bill... isn't that the point of elected justices?<br /><br />If not, then Justices should be running on the idea of being impartial, which actually Kloppenburg's latest commercials are trying to do. But then you'd say she's not being candid. Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.<br /><br />I do understand your point, and I actually agree with it for the most part. But that doesn't seem to be how our system is really set up.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030804900292712902noreply@blogger.com