tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post978671620095745056..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Shark on Dead TreeRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-34112757728392153742010-03-05T09:41:25.611-06:002010-03-05T09:41:25.611-06:00Nor does this necessarily mean that the position o...<i>Nor does this necessarily mean that the position of those three justices on the power of the Court to mandate the recusal of a peer justice is consistent with Caperton. I think that's a more difficult question.</i><br /><br />Just so. I'm baffled as to why those 3 justices think plenary review isn't mandated by <i>State v. American TV</i>, 151 Wis.2d 175, 179, 180-81, 443 N.W.2d 662(1989):<br /><br /><i>Where a justice who participated in a case was disqualified by law, the court's judgment in that case is void. .. . Here, if Justice Bablitch were disqualified by law from participating in this case, as the State contends, the court's decision would be void and ... we would retain jurisdiction to vacate or modify it.</i><br /><br />In other words, under settled caselaw, if any given justice participated in the opinion despite a disqualification of some sort, his or participation renders the decision "void." Moreover, a disqualification-challenge can be raised <i>after</i> the decision is issued, on motion for reconsideration. Why, then, can't the potential taint be removed by plenary review <i>before</i> the decision is issued?William Tyrolerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03964907089960326249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-45196805033286207602010-03-04T08:02:26.900-06:002010-03-04T08:02:26.900-06:00Get that guy a blog!
The first commenter, I mean....Get that guy a blog!<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/86032757.html#comment38629941" rel="nofollow">first commenter</a>, I mean.<br /><br />Standard Contradictory Disclaimerâ„¢: <i>Which I have, of course, criticized.</i> Wink, wink!<br /><br />Please, Uncle Rick, bring out the scary judicial activism puppet again!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com