tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post7214975771566996186..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: No, I "get" judicial integrityRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31155697097224496842008-07-21T22:32:00.000-05:002008-07-21T22:32:00.000-05:00Super idI can't help but point out that you are co...Super id<BR/><BR/>I can't help but point out that you are confusing two different questions. (Occupational hazard, I guess). The issue in Menasha was not whether a customized computer program is a product. Whether they are or they aren't, the legislature has decided that they are not to be taxed. The question before the court was whether the program that Menasha bought was a customized computer program. The majority wanted to defer to the Tax Appeals Commission's determination that it was.<BR/><BR/>While it is certainly true that the reasons that Roggensack may have relied on in concluding that architectural services were a product might have lead her to conclude that customized software is as well, that wasn't the question before her. While you could interpret the term customized computer program in terms of whether it is a service as opposed to a product, the majority, relying on regs and the idea that it ought to defer to the Commission, did not do that.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, I agree that the ELD is a mess, although not because of "activism."Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-10313027461444847022008-07-21T21:27:00.000-05:002008-07-21T21:27:00.000-05:00One could always speculate on 'the appearance of i...One could always speculate on 'the appearance of impropriety' in viewing HRC's alleged naked-shorts in pharmaceutical companies prior to the release of her national health insurance plan during BillyBoy's Presidency.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-57664342765609513172008-07-21T20:46:00.000-05:002008-07-21T20:46:00.000-05:00Rick. You ought to know by now, that the left can...Rick. You ought to know by now, that the left cannot abide losing.<BR/>They cannot abide those with a different opinion than theirs. They are manic. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure you know that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-87117713271011006102008-07-21T20:16:00.000-05:002008-07-21T20:16:00.000-05:00Again, I go back to my comments regarding the Cour...Again, I go back to my comments regarding the Court's activism with the economic loss doctrine. In Stuart, Roggansack noted in dissent that she believed that an architect drawing plans provided a product rather than a service, she considered architecture plans to be a product (ELD only applies to goods and not services). <BR/><BR/>But here, she was willing to join the majority to hold that customized computer programs are not products. At least to me, it seems as though there is a double standard regarding what is a good and what is a service. But I am curious, does this holding mean that Roggansack et. al. would not apply the ELD to bar false representations against Mensha?Scot1andhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05560353521307181651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-8751115064483706942008-07-21T10:58:00.000-05:002008-07-21T10:58:00.000-05:00I was in the midst of writing about this, but sort...I was in the midst of writing about this, but sort of lost interest. I was also going to write in agreement with much of your earlier post on <I>Menasha</I>, but lost interest in that too.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I agree that "appearance of impropriety" is not enough to draw the conclusions that some of the "liberals" are reaching. <BR/><BR/>If one of the keys to the majority's decision in <I>Menasha</I> is its deference to the legislature's directive with respect to the weight of administrative interpretations of the statute(s), then Justice Ziegler was evidently predisposed to that attitude regardless of how much money WMC spent in support of her candidacy.<BR/><BR/>In other words, that's <I>why</I> WMC supported her candidacy in the first place; she didn't arrive there <I>because</I> WMC spent the bucks.<BR/><BR/>And when you advertise yourself during an election as a judicial conservative, then obviously you're going to attract the support of those who favor judicial conservatives, whatever that means.<BR/><BR/>(Or whether the candidate himself even understands what it means. Ahem.)<BR/><BR/>Maybe it doesn't "look good" that Justice Ziegler wrote the majority opinion and WMC filed an amicus brief. <BR/><BR/>But without anything further than that, I don't think it's fair to accuse her of political or corporate bias especially, as Soglin admits, when that conclusion doesn't even take into consideration any analysis of the majority's reasoning in <I>Menasha</I>.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.com