April 30, 2011

Charles Franklin forgets Ron Johnson already

"You don't beat somebody with nobody," Franklin says.
Axiom fail.

Trump / RoJo 2012

For this you traded Russ Feingold
"Obviously, someone has given serious consideration to (me being a potential running mate), but I'm focusing on my role in the Senate," said Ron 'Sunspots' Johnson of Oshkosh, WI.
Because they're serious people with serious ideas. Meanwhile today's Republican Party is busy vilifying its most viable 2012 presidential candidate for trying to assist the young, the ill, and the elderly while today's GOP's most viable 2012 candidate is doing his best to deny it.

h/t @tiffanybrault.

Kloppenburg lawyers up

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg, who called for a Statewide recount of 1.5M ballots based on a notorious mishap in reporting votes to the AP in Waukesha County and who moreover requested of the Government Accountability Board an independent investigation into Waukesha County, sends an attorney to monitor the recount in Waukesha County — but three days into the process.

Would it be fair to say that is not beneficial to the "optics"?

Making me look like Nostradamus over here. Worse still, giving to Justice Prosser's "recount manager" Brian J. Nemoir* the upper hand.


* Of Waukesha County and as a matter of fact: "Too much Waukesha County," as Justice Prosser himself slyly put it in a March interview.

(WTMJ-4's report calls him "Brian J. Niemer.")

April 29, 2011

Ambitious Walker advances to violating federal law

Violating Wisconsin constitution unsatisfying
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Jesus
Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to privatize work determining who is eligible for food assistance in the state would violate federal law and could expose the state to a loss of more than $20 million in federal money, federal officials say.
Money for food stamps. Thanks, "Tea Party."
"I really think there's a reason why God put all these political thoughts in my head," said Walker of his "Walk with Christ."
Thanks for Ron "Either ignorant or lying" Johnson also.

This is what you get for electing Ayn Rand's disciples.

April 28, 2011

Proving Obama BC a forgery probably not possible

Because the government has had two-and-a-half years to work on it.

Okay these people are just flat out insane.

MJS edit board calls Patrick McIlheran "silly"

"Will the silliness end?" pleads the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, calling Donald Trump "pathetic" and "birther-in-chief." "The birthers will never accept Obama's legitimacy," say the board, and they're probably right. Meanwhile the J-S's unintentionally comic wing-nut calumnist Patrick McIlheran allowed Tuesday that he "f[e]ll in the 'probably' camp" where it came to Obama's U.S. natal provenance.

And in any event he was "exhausted" by all the talk of Obama's birthplace (it's Hawaii, have you heard). There, there, get your blankie and have a nice lie-down. Let's warm you up some milk.

Oh, but not too exhausted, apparently:*
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we come to learn that Obama really was born outside the United States. Suppose he were born in Kenya ...
Followed by some other typically phantasized nonsense.

Then of course the next day Obama finally decided he'd had enough and Patrick McIlheran just went about busying himself along his merry wing-nut way. He must have a pretty strong union steward.

* McIlheran's I'm-not-saying-Sonia-Sotomayor's-a-racist-but move.

eta: McIlheran flogged some more with another Bisphenol A editorial.

Clandestine Walker-Prosser meeting revealed

"Never went beyond the reception person."
[A]ny visit would have been to request gubernatorial mementoes for visiting international students.
Mighty spooky stuff. These guys aren't exactly Machiavellians.

Now does that make the allegation better? No: It makes it worse.

Brief No. 1 in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald

Via the indispensable Wheeler Report (.pdf; 30 pgs.).

Following a quick skim I'm here to tell you that it's safe to say its authors got beyond "a publication that is sent to schoolchildren."

Wis. AG JBVH's response is due by 05/18.

Walker stickering criminal damage to property?

That's a bit of a stretch. Next thing you know the grocers will be having you arrested for squeezing the AngelSoft toilet paper.

This blog post is not an endorsement of either stickering or AngelSoft toilet paper.

Klansman Trump

A white man who was handed everything called the President of the United States (and me) a nigger. — Baratunde
Racists are still racists today, long-form birth certificate or not.

Art Tatum —— Billie Holiday —— Sarah Vaughn —— Bob Marley

Those there put the lie to racism as effectively as I can imagine.

Wisconsin S. Ct. recount fun with numbers

Total number of counties in Wisconsin: 72

Number of counties where the difference between unofficial results reported to/by the AP and official, canvassed results was zero: 23

Number of counties where the difference was ten votes or less: 30

Between eleven and 20: 5

Between 21 and 100: 6

In other words, overwhelmingly conscientious and accurate.

Portage: 111 (0.55% of total)
Grant: 113 (1.13%)
Iowa: 184 (2.89%)
Kenosha: 204 (0.67%)
Eau Claire: 427 (1.56%)
Milwaukee: 807 (0.35%)
Winnebago: 1176 (2.97%) [reportedly a computer/input error]
Waukesha: 14434 (11.55%)

The recount was requested primarily because of that last number. It does not appear to be representative of a widespread phenomenon.

And who's to say any of those weren't keypunch errors by the AP.

Yesterday the Shepherd Express ran the following quote from JoAnne Kloppenburg's campaign manager in 72-point bold, red type, all caps:
"With a margin this small, the importance of every vote is magnified and the doubt about every vote is magnified."
Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is in a very real sense offensive, to have one's perfectly valid vote "doubted."

For example, what reason is there to doubt a vote cast in Racine County, where 50,722 Supreme Court votes were tabulated by election workers on the night of April 5 and the exact same number confirmed on canvassing? There is none, let alone doubt that is "magnified" by circumstances outside Racine County. Nor is the importance of those votes either magnified or diminished, period.

First time the Shepherd's Lisa Kaiser, who for my money is one of the best advocacy journalists* in SE Wisconsin, ever disappointed me.

It had better be the last!

* Scratch "advocacy" and it's still true.

April 27, 2011

McIlheran burned some more, on the front page

Remember the other day when Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel managing editor George Stanley hopped into calumnist Patrick McIlheran's thread to point out that the authors of a German study McIlheran was trumpeting had ties to the industry their own study was protecting?

Stanley wasn't done.

The scientists were reported to be testing the efficacy of Bisphenol A as a flame retardant additive to Patrick McIlheran's underpants.

You can only get away with being a hack for so long.

And in comments, a daring corporate apologetic. Follow the logic:
The only people who care to know the truth are connected to the industries. They have an actual financial interest in the product and therefore will care about the results.

Prosser spox: Dane County voters "lemmings"

You stay classy guys.* Win gracious now.

You want lemmings, try Washington County, which went 76% for Prosser (80% in the February primary). That's some lemmings.

Or lemming central, Waukesha County: 82% Prosser in the primary.

And in other Waukesha County news:
Recount moving backwards for Kloppenburg

If Prosser ends up gaining Statewide, we'll never hear the end of it.

* Story explodes a bunch of other Republican lies as well.

Prof. Rick's quote of the day: "Ethos"

Amazing Feets [work]
Shark jumps Bronze Fonz while Bronze Fonz jumping shark

"[T]he left has taken one more step from the rule of law, civility and an ethos of mutual respect." — the professor of the law who called Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi, Dane County District Attorney Ismail Ozanne, et al, "schoolchildren" and "gradeschoolers."

Well played, sir, well played.

Prof. Rick is another fine product of Journal Communications, Inc.
Oh, look, and Fox News. Surprise!

N.B. The above Fox News column is a blinding glimpse of the bleedin' obvious, so it's not a surprise that Fox News readers would require it.

Husband of Judge Maryann Sumi speaks out

Hear, hear.

This space has been pounding that drum for weeks, brother. And you know who's been enabling those pathetic fallacies more than anyone? Responsible corporate citizen Journal Communications, Inc., is who.

If JRN published a corrective in the meantime, I'd sure like to see it.

I couldn't even locate any "in-house heavy lifting" at the MJS.

eta: However, the MJS is webhosting an open cistern on the matter.

Thumbs up!

Farmer Charlie Sykes spreads some more manure

Another fine, fragrant JRN product

Courtesy the wing-nuts at Wisconsin Club For Growth, and local medium wave jackanapes Charlie Sykes's* "Hot Read"** this morning:
Last week, former Dane County Executive Jonathan Barry said Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's presumption of authority to block the [Fitz Van Walker union-busting] legislation is "so egregiously wrong on the face of it that one has to conclude it's political." A prominent member of the Assembly in the 1980's, when Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law was revised, Barry noted there has been no violation because the Legislature created the exemptions that allow it to operate precisely as it did last month.
Presumably Jonathan Barry — who is not a lawyer but a farmer — is referring to Wis. Stat. § 19.87(2), which purports to resolve conflicts between the statutes and the legislature's internal rules of operation, but we've been over all of this ages ago and there is no conflict. The rule(s) alleged to be in conflict refer(s) only to the manner of the meeting notice whereas the statute alleged to be in conflict with the rule(s) refer(s) to the time of the meeting notice. In fact not only are the provisions not in conflict, they are necessarily complementary.

Or complimentary, as the Justice Prosser campaign would say.

Let's try to keep up, wing-nuts.

* Journal Communications, Inc.'s top marquee "personality."

Do they have any Journal-istic standards over there, or what?

** As in, steaming hot pile.

April 26, 2011

Glenn Grothman vs. the Atheistic Socialists

This character is a parody of a conservative . . . please? (.pdf)

And here's Wis. Sen. Glenn Grothman telling the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that education "can have harmful psychological effects."

Sen. Grothman himself has a law degree [!] so maybe he's correct, although Grothman's attendance at the University of Wisconsin law school apparently predated the tenure of top blogger/law perfesser Ann Althouse, thus mitigating the harmful psychological effects.

For years Grothman has served the good people of Washington County, where his many admirers compare him favorably to Louie Gohmert, and his detractors disfavorably to a block of softwood.

RIP Poly Styrene

53, still just a kid.

Warrior In Woolworths
I Live Off You

Apathy's a drag. — Poly Styrene, proto-consumerist

April 25, 2011

Scalia was another dummy who edited the HLR

You know the GOP clowncar, well this is the clown at the wheel.

Made for each other. (Trump is a genius, btw.)

A-Rod mans the Kloppenburg conspiracy boats

Only about four days after they sunk

Local right-wing blogger Aaron Rodriguez, who can't spell JoAnne Kloppenburg either, tips the tin-foil haberdashery:*
In comes the next theory. Brian Schultz, a political scientist from Minnesota, theorizes that a lengthy recount could keep Prosser off the bench long enough so the Supreme Court rule on the law [sic] without him. Such a vote would result in a 3-3 split stopping the bill from going into effect. Kloppenburg's campaign denies that this is their intent, but why else call for a recount when the lead is insurmountable?
Oy. Where to start. There's no such person as Brian Schultz, political scientist from Minnesota. It's David A. Schultz, law professor from Minnesota (Hamline University, to be exact). While Rodriguez's item is date stamped April 22, the Wisconsin Reporter story appeared on April 21, erroneously identifying a "Brian" Schultz. Blessed Cursed with the editor's eye as we are, @gnarlytrombone, @folkbum, and myself quickly determined the error, ID'd the proper suspect, and notified the Wisconsin Reporter, which corrected the story posthaste.

All in a moment's work. You're welcome, media consuming universe.

Second, the recount will be complete by May 9 (it will be substantially complete long before then) which leaves Justice Prosser substantial time to deliberate. Thirdly, maybe the Kloppenburg campaign believes the lead is surmountable. In which case why not simply dismiss the liberals as delusional, which is what most rightblarghers do most of the time anyway; the problem is the quality of their factchecking is on roughly par with the example shown above.**

Or, y'know, it could be Kloppenburg is exercising her statutory rights.

Fourth, there is this (April 22, 7:23 a.m.).

Finally, and most importantly, there is nothing preventing Prosser and his three hard-right conservative allies from granting the secretary of administration's petition for supervisory writ and vacating Judge Sumi's injunction faster than you can gobble down a Culver's royale with cheese. But for all the recalcitrance and sneering on the right, it doesn't seem to be such an easy question, does it?

The District IV Court of Appeals in Madison, a more than capable reviewing crew, passed it over several weeks ago. What does that tell you? It tells me Judge Sumi has gotten it right, which this space has been arguing not since November 2010,** but it feels like it.

Of course this space came to that conclusion independently, so it's gratifying to be affirmed by a most conservative judge, one so conservative that even she herself was almost invariably affirmed by the most conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

That's like, conservative to the power of three.

Mr. Rodriguez might want to throw that tidbit into the calculus as well. Now can we put this silly conspiracy theory to bed, please?

Oh and also?
Let's call a spade a spade; voter fraud is usually a problem for Democrats ...
Really, seriously, incredibly unfortunate cliché there, Bucky.

If you knew the first thing about Milwaukee politics. Again: Oy.

h/t WisOpinion.

* Apparently this is what he gets up to when he's not suggesting that my good friend Chris Liebenthal was committing federal felonies. (That whole comments thread is worth reading. Lots of yuks there.)

** I'm sorry but the failure to check proper names is unforgivable, particularly in this case, where you're purporting to criticize a candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court who has been campaigning actively at least since November of 2010. Not only is it unmitigatable disheveledness, it tells a reader you have no idea what you're talking about, because you couldn't possibly have been following the election until about five minutes ago, when you decided to throw together a cheap, partisan hack-piece. Life is rough, but that's how it looks and that's exactly what any conscientious reporter or editor will tell you.

You don't misspell proper names. You just don't.

Thank you Jesus, Prince of Peace

Waukesha mayor supplies Christianity-infused management manual "reading assignment," now the whole darn shlimazl has blown up into a great big unseemly fight. Y'know, those Framers were pretty wise.

Maybe Mayor Scrima should check 'em out.

Gableman complains about out-of-State donors

Why is this man so angry?

This is really something to behold (YouTube, 6:49).

That's the same guy who collected $70K in $10K increments from out-of-State donors during the final days of his 2008 campaign, and during which he violated the Wisconsin code of judicial ethics by lying about his opponent, a sitting justice of the court. The ironies throughout this intemperate Republican rubber chicken spiel are just short of unbearable. Didn't anybody think to recall Gableman?*

The self-righteous affirmations of adherence to the text ring a bit hollow once you've literally rewritten the Wisconsin constitution and finally, he appears rather concerned about voter registration drives in predominantly** African-American Milwaukee neighborhoods.

So a little race hustling for the icing on the cake.

It's quite the remarkable performance: "Judicious."***

One thing's for sure, if Kloppenburg expected to settle this fellow down by her presence on the court, she must have been dreaming.

h/t Jim Rowen.

* As a member of the court, Michael Gableman presides over WisBar attorneys' compliance with ethical standards and practices. Seriously.

Where does Gableman's moral authority come from? You tell me.

** Exclusively, is probably more accurate.

*** That's one word that doesn't immediately spring to mind.

Rappin' with Dad29, foil-hatted conspiracist

In which local wing-nut Dad29 ("old, nasty") joins the conspiracists.

Take it away, Dad29:
A month or so ago it was clear that [Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann] Sumi's kangaroo-ing was designed to delay a decision. That delay would result in [Supreme Court of Wisconsin] review of the case after Prosser was out, i.e., after August 1st. Of course, Kloppenburg had to win. Oh, well.

The backup plan is now in play. Kloppy requests a recount, which will take a long time.[*] As of 8/1, SCOWI becomes a 3-3 tie (at least in theory, but [Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson has counted her chickens very carefully). Ergo, a Madison Appeals court ruling will stand. Kloppy's just roadkill here. It's the vacancy on SCOWI that counts.
It was difficult to resist, on a lazy Sunday:
What Madison appeals court ruling?

shut up the tin foil crowd [Quoting Dad's mentor Esenberg.]

Hear that Dad?
What Madison appeals court ruling?

We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet. You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?
Your humble scribe:
We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet.

Right, but there is no appeals court "ruling." There was the [Department of Justice]'s District IV appeal, which the latter kicked upstairs, and the DoJ's ability to effectively represent its plaintiff secretary of state appears to be irretrievably broken. So that thing is dead in the water (maybe Cathy Stepp could fish it out). And there is [Secretary of Administration] Mike Huebsch's petition for a supervisory writ, also filed by the DoJ, a terribly unconvincing document, I'm sorry to tell you.

You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?

I don't expect them to, unless they want to rule the Open Meetings Law unconstitutional, at least insofar as it applies to the express prohibition on the sufficiency of the Fitzes' 1hr and 57m meeting notice (why wasn't Jeff Fitz in his office, by the way, when the witching hour was imminent? That's probably the biggest FUBAR in this entire escapade). But I would like to see the court declare the OML unconstitutional, for sheer entertainment at least. Imagine all of those restraintful, conservative jurisprudes "unmooring" themselves from the plain text and relying instead on Cromwell-era common law. What fun.

Incidentally, Daddy-O, you and your wing-right pals really need to stop criticizing Judge Sumi with your goofball ad hominem japes, as they embarrass nobody but you all (but of course you can keep it up for the pure entertainment value as well). What it tells people who have read the law (beyond Prof. Rick's "publication that is sent to schoolchildren," that is) is that you've got nothing *but* ad hominem fallacies. I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.

By the way, Dad, have you had a gander at Judge Sumi's record on appeal? Here, let me show you it.
Dad29, back for more:
I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.

I have, from Prof. Rick, who actually practiced law for quite some time — successfully.

As to Sumi: she gets the respect that she earns. No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.
Your humble scribe:
I have, from Prof. Rick ...

Well, good for you guys. You might find it interesting that Prof. Rick's watershed, controlling precedent, Goodland v. Zimmerman [Anno Domini 1943], barely makes an appearance in the Huebsch petition for a supervisory writ. Instead, the petition focuses primarily on La Follette v. Stitt.

You want to know why? Because the facts and law at issue in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald precisely describe that situation which Stitt repeatedly insists it does not cover. Go read Stitt (it's online), and see how quickly you lose count of the 'excepts' and the 'unlesses.' In other words, Stitt is unavailing, and JBVH knows it, as is Lynch v. Conta and as is MJS v. Wis. DoA, but we (and District IV) knew that already.

Grandes problemos, Daddy-O. You'll see (maybe). By the way this business is all constitutional law and statutory construction, which you don't need 20 years experience taking depositions to evaluate. And there's plenty of other pretty sharp cookies among the Marquette law faculty who haven't practiced a whole hell of a lot of law.

No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.

Except Judge Sumi hasn't done that. What do you think the briefing schedule is for? Besides, the convincing argument is sitting up right there among the black letter constitutional and statutory provisions. Have a look-see, Pops.
More Père le vingt-neuf:
But then, no one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO [temporary injunction] against a law which is not actually a law, either.
And some law:
Wis. Stat. § Dad(29): [N]o one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO against a law which is not actually a law, either.

Wis. Stat. § 19.97(2): [T]he district attorney may commence an action ... to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment ...

Why, it's unthinkable!

You're funny Dad.

* It won't take a long time. Outside of MKE Co., it's a can of corn. Once the precincts get set up, the recounting will go very quickly.

It's not like they're counting one big bag of 1.5M ballots. They're counting several hundred much smaller quantities and tallying 'em up

April 24, 2011

Today on Sunday INCITE! with Charlie McIlheran

The GOP's David Prosser Dilemma:
Is recounting votes a gigantic, waste-of-time pain in the ass, or is it a gratuitously expensive, gigantic, waste-of-time pain in the ass?
TMJ-4's Sunday INCITE! with Charlie McSykes is a Journal Communications, Inc. Joint

April 23, 2011

Prosser recount lawyer James Troupis funnies

March 24, 2011:
We asked James Troupis: Was the departure of the 14 Democrats a 9-11 type emergency? "Yes," he responded.
That's the same guy who called this Wis. S. Ct. recount "frivolous."

Mr. Troupis is also the lead plaintiffs' attorney in a case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the public financing scheme of which Justice Prosser partook to conduct his campaign for reelection. Now he is representing Prosser in the final stages of that same campaign. As the kids say, I'm just sayin'.

Now that might make an interesting op-ed piece in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Instead, this weekend, you can read some more conservative Republican apologetics by a WPRI "senior fellow."

Things are well beyond (but still including) a joke at this point.

April 22, 2011

Patrick McIlheran gets his hack bum spanked


George Stanley is the Journal-Sentinel's managing editor. It's about bloody time somebody in-house corrected Patrick McIlheran's drivel.

Good on Stanley.

eta 01 OWN's Scot Ross concurs in part, dissents in part:
Two cents: I think it's incredibly hypocritical of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to point this out, when it pays [McIlheran] to churn out this right-wing, pro-corporate propaganda on a regular basis without any consistent voice of opposition. Until he strays from the company line ...
eta 02 Jon Entine responds. Mr. Entine, a journalist and American Enterprise Institute (Scaife, Bradley, etc.) "fellow," wrote the article from which Patrick McIlheran produced the pregnant children:
Mr. Stanley ... is flat out 100% wrong. He lied to his readers.
P. McIlheran hisself next appears in-thread. Flamewar!

eta 03 Jon Entine returns for some more:
For the record, Mr. McIlheran did not contact me. I noticed this article on Google News and read the comments. Frankly, Mr. Stanley's comment is so undeniably wrong and irresponsible, I believe he should be publicly reprimanded by the publisher and perhaps even fired. It's so antithetical to the established canons of journalism. Moreover, he criticized his own reporter[*] in public, which is as unprofessional as it gets. And he was wrong to boot. He should start with a public apology. And I would suggest an independent review of the Journal Sentinel's reporting on BPA and chemicals as it is apparent that his judgment is polluted beyond repair. What a disgrace for the JS.
Good Day Sir!

* McIlheran was not "reporting" and Stanley didn't "criticize" him.

eta 04 And yet still more additional Jon Entine:
For example, Health Canada's ban came after its science advisory panel concluded, starkly: "Bisphenol A does not pose a risk to the general population, including adults, teenagers and children." It was then overruled by the political arm of Health Canada, which said in its news release that "decisions have to be made to meet society's expectations" — in other words, in response to hysteria generated by the likes of the JS.
I don't know where the AEI "fellow" Jon Entine's quote comes from, but Health Canada's website reads:
Health Canada's Food Directorate has concluded that the current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and infants.
Emphasis added. Health Canada then goes on to note its steps were/are taken to protect "this sensitive segment of the population."

So why does Jon Entine hate Canadian newborns and infants?

(By the way, positive and approving appeals to "This is how Canada does it!" are something you hear quite often from journalist Patrick McIlheran when he's on the healthcare warpath, aren't they. Oh yes.)

And: Medium wave howler Charlie Sykes to the rescue!

Well, there's at least one common denominator emerging here: The Bradley Foundation. Can law perfesser Rick Esenberg be far behind?

Hamline law professor lectures Kloppenburg

In making this wild and baseless claim:
An expert in legal politics says AAG JoAnne Kloppenburg may have launched a recount of votes from the April 5 State Supreme Court race to ultimately sway the outcome of a legal challenge to Gov. Scott Walker's union reform efforts. David A. Schultz, a law professor at Hamline University in Minnesota, said Kloppenburg's recount in her contest against Justice David Prosser could be an attempt to stall matters until crucial issues come before the court. The next justice is scheduled to be sworn in August 1, but a protracted legal dispute could delay the winner from taking office.
Naturally the wing-nut elements, led as usual by Charlie Sykes, are citing to this thoroughly unsupported suggestion approvingly.

Because ridiculous conspiracy theories are their stock in trade and their foolishness knows no physical or psychological boundaries.

Only one very large problem: In 2001 Justice Prosser was elected to a 10-year term, which doesn't expire until July 31, 2011. In other words, Justice Prosser already "took office" ten years ago. Apparently the MN "expert in legal politics" is not aware Justice Prosser is an incumbent, a sitting member of the court that has been working and hearing oral arguments throughout the month of April. There is one petition before the court related to Gov. Scott Walker's budget bill shenanigans, filed on April 7, asking the court to invalidate the temporary restraining order issued by Judge Maryann Sumi.*

There is no law or rule that I'm aware of preventing the court from accepting the petition this afternoon, together with Justice Prosser's participation.** Yet here is a professor of law suggesting that an assistant attorney general is deliberately stalling the process of litigation through the appellate courts. It's a serious charge, made without a scintilla of evidence, and is especially irresponsible issuing from a professor of law. On the other hand, it is Hamline University.

That's Mike Gableman's alma mater.

* There is/was another that was kicked upstairs by the District IV Court of Appeals, but it was filed on behalf of Secretary of State Doug La Follette by the Department of Justice, whose ability to represent the interests of the named plaintiff has been questioned to the point of ineffective assistance of counsel thanks to the DoJ's performance in the aforementioned Dane County circuit court.

** Then-State assemblyman Prosser in 1983 filed an amicus brief in one of the cases that would play a defining role*** in the Supreme Court's review of Judge Sumi's disposition, but the brief is not directly related to the central question of whether the judicial branch may undertake to enforce constitutional and statutory provisions against the internal [sic] operations of the legislative branch.

Now that might be an interesting tidbit for a law professor to point out, but in fact it was this blog that did, nearly a month ago. We've since navigated the microfiche machine to obtain one of about three extant copies of the brief in the entire State of Wisconsin. So now you know just where to come for all yer law perfessin' requirements.

*** It's also manifestly unavailing to the Fitz Van Walker cause, IMO.

April 21, 2011

Wis. S. Ct. Justice David Prosser is angry

And with good cause, once again:
Supreme Court Justice David Prosser angrily repeated denials Thursday that he had met with Gov. Scott Walker shortly after the court election, denouncing his opponent's campaign for making the claim. Melissa Mulliken, the campaign manager for Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, made the claim Wednesday in a complaint filed with the state Government Accountability Board. That complaint sought an inquiry into a county clerk, not Prosser.
Emphasis added (Objection: Relevance).

What a stupid, stupid thing to allege without proof in a formal document. I was going to mention it this morning but thought it better to leave it alone and hope it went away. At this point I'm about ready to volunteer for Prosser's recount team (not really but, almost).

I reckoned earlier this recount request was a bad idea and why it was a bad idea but I didn't reckon it was going to get this bad this fast.

Agent of Kloppenburg's GAB complaint

Here is JoAnne Kloppenburg's complaint to the Government Accountability Board, Wisconsin's supervisor of all things election, filed by her campaign manager Melissa Mulliken. While it's a helpful rehearsal of a number of State statutes, it contains no substantive allegations of criminal — or otherwise — wrongdoing whatsoever.*

If someone can explain to me why they are doing this, I'd be grateful.

* However, allegations of ineptness approaching incompetence: Yes.

Speaking of JRN's marquee radio personality

Happy birthday Chuckles

Skimming the iniquitous den that is the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's comments section, one finds innumerable references by the "Family Values" conservative Republican set to JoAnne Kloppenburg's alleged physical resemblance to that of a character in The Wizard of Oz, as if that had anything to do with anything at all, even if it were the case.

You know where those come from, right?

Good guess:
Its that time. Joanne Kloppenburg has formally announced the launch of the flying monkeys.
That was on April 6, and JRN's Charlie Sykes hasn't let up since:
Kloppenburg calls forstate-funded flying monkeys...to be released throughout state... Message to Waukesha... "...and your little dog too!"
That's from yesterday. "Blogfather" Charlie Sykes is 12 years old.

Wisconsin: Kloppenburg doubts your vote

JoAnne Kloppenburg, explaining her decision to seek a recount:
There are legitimate and widespread questions about the conduct of this election — most visibly in Waukesha County, but also in counties around the state.
I suppose we'll be learning more about these legitimate and widespread questions in the days to come. It might be recalled that Kloppenburg emerged early the morning of April 6 the unofficial winner of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election by a couple of hundred votes out of nearly 1.5 million cast. I don't think there's any question the incumbent, Justice David Prosser, would have called for a recount had it not been for the eventual emergence of the fact that WaukCo. failed to report 14,000-odd ballots into the unofficial totals.

Those put Justice Prosser ahead by 7,316 votes. But not for that and those, it seems highly likely Kloppenburg's legitimate and widespread questions would have remained unasked.* Apart from a couple of instances — Winnebago County and maybe Eau Claire County — the difference between the unofficial and canvassed totals throughout Wisconsin's other 71 counties is negligible. They're probably not going to change when they're counted a fourth or an eighth time. And Kloppenburg might be better off leaving Winnebago County alone. She beat down Prosser's 66% in the February 15 primary to a Scott Walker-mandate-quality 52% on April 5. (Beyond WTMJ 620's reach, there are a great many devotees of Charlie Sykes's podcasts there.)

Prosser has already charged that Kloppenburg is not so much on a mission to discover Kloppenburg votes but to discredit Prosser ones.

With a margin this small — less than one half of one percent — the importance of every vote is magnified. And doubts about each vote are magnified as well.
That's a weird thing to say. I'm not following the logic here. Votes are important in any event. That a divided number of them is around 50% doesn't make them any more or less so. It's just an Arabic numeral.

So the assertion that they are any more or less important makes for a questionable premise. Even if one accepts it, it doesn't follow that "doubts" about every individual vote are "magnified." Indeed, Kloppenburg's strange claim cries out for Justice Prosser's response, that Atty. Kloppenburg is off on a hunt for deficient Prosser ballots.

It's difficult to conceive Kloppenburg is doubting Kloppenburg votes.

And the word "magnifying" conjures that famous image of the guy in Florida counting the pulp fibers attaching a perforation to a hanging chad. I fear this is going be an unpleasant experience for everybody.

* She declared victory.

GOP: Court, intermeddle in legislative procedure

A former state legislator who wasn’t given a staff job with the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee filed a lawsuit Tuesday, claiming that she was not hired because she is a Republican.
Only just recently I read something about how inappropriate it was for the courts to "intermeddle" in legislative procedure and how the legislature can make up or break up its own rules as it goes along.

Whatever happened to those good old days?

April 20, 2011

One thing we can all be grateful to Walker for

That he doesn't get to appoint airline pilots and brain surgeons.

I'm surprised I didn't get the job —
I don't even know where Marinette County is.

Well this is certainly an awkward blow

"Hey there, sexy guy ... "

Hopper, Randy mailer invitation to love you long time$ sex chat

You might say that goes down in the anals of unfortunate typography.

Hopper, Earlier

Troupis suggests wing-nut slander suit meritorious

Item: Wis. lawyer holds statutorily authorized recount "frivolous"

Check this out. I haven't heard that much sneering since Rick Esenberg was on Wisconsin Public Radio. Firefighters Local 311 should sue her just for the hell of it. Find a liberal lawyer with an evil sense of humor (which is purt near every one I've ever met) to write an uproarious complaint. I wouldn't worry too much about Scott Walker's new "tort reforms," which instituted money penalties for frivolous actions because if requesting a statutorily authorized election recount is frivolous, then the word has no more meaning.

OTOH the DSM-IV-wn* counsels against fulfilling cries for attention.

See also, Sykes, Charlie: "Litigate everything."

Speaking of Vicki doppelgänger Sykes and firefighters, did you know that there is an amendment to the Ozaukee County building code ordinances which requires two fire extinguishers in Sykes's pants closet — one standard ABC and the other especially for polyester.

* Wing-nut (2011).

eta 01: Wolf on back, snake on chestBlogging Blue.

I always thought U2 was one of those earnest, emo bands (and don't get me started on the bass player). What sort of person would they make "verbally and physically combative." That's like rioting at a John Tesh concert (which I could understand, but for different reasons).

eta 02: "Vicki McKenna is every bit the journalist that ... David Blaska [is]," writes David Blaska. I think we can all agree on that.

I'm still smarting from Breitblart screaming at me to "Go to Hell."

April 19, 2011

Congressman Jack Kimble's Corner

This person is slyly and drily hilarious.

The poor sod: File under Western Philosophy 432

À propos of nothing in particular, it occurred to me to explain this blog's frequent use of the expression "poor sod" which I understand is not unique to American English. The reason it's enjoyed so much here is because Fabrizio Mondadori, who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, invariably used the term to describe René Descartes during a course I took under his unforgettable tutelage. Having initially expounded on Descartes's theory of mind, the remainder of the course dwelt with the countervailing proto-positivism of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume.*

And almost every time Descartes made an appearance in Prof. Mondadori's discourse thence, it was only with the suffix, "the poor sod." And for whatever obscure reasons whenever I think of those moments now, I can't help laughing out loud. So there you go.

* Prof. Mondadori said that David Hume was the greatest writer in the English language (and he wasn't kidding around then). I had never heard a philosopher — or any non-poet, -novelist, or -dramatist — described in those high terms before and it's a captivating opinion.

Got your so-called frivolousness right here

Justice David Prosser's attorney, the Republican-for-hire James Troupis, claims a potential recount requested by the campaign of Supreme Court challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg would be "frivolous."

As noted at this space previously (and which is surely common knowledge by now), there is a Wisconsin statute that explicitly addresses the current situation, where the difference between Prosser's and Kloppenburg's vote totals is 0.488603046756558%:
If the difference between the votes cast for the leading candidate and those cast for the petitioner is not more than 0.5% of the total votes cast for the office, the petitioner is not required to pay a fee. — Wis. Stat. § 9.01(1)(ag)1.
So how in the world could something expressly contemplated and authorized by State statute possibly be frivolous? Answer: It cannot.

By definition.

Personally I believe a recount would be ultimately unavailing to Kloppenburg and moreover destructive to the general political cause, but one thing a recount most certainly would not be is frivolous (which is a legal term of art and as such I would expect its legal understanding to inhere when the term is uttered by a lawyer).

Furthermore the irony of Counselor Troupis's charge is explosive.

His lawsuit filed in Oconto County, which purported to seek a remedy that would stand in clear violation of separation of powers doctrine, in actuality sought obiter dicta from the court which counsel could then provide to Senate GOP leader Scott Fitzgerald as justifying the arrest by State law enforcement officials of 14 Democratic Senators, including one who was at the time six months pregnant.

Despite receiving neither the remedy nor the clear dicta, plaintiff's counsel then pretended that they did obtain the latter, and set to preparing and presenting to Fitzgerald the said legal memorandum — the advice in which even Fitz himself later described as "comical"* — on that questionable basis. All of which describes a situation that, for all practical purposes, is an example of frivolousness incarnate.

Compounding that irony is the fact that Marquette law professor Rick Esenberg, Troupis's co-counsel in the Oconto County matter, was recently featured on Wisconsin Public Radio crying about Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's alleged violation of — wait for it — separation of powers doctrine. I have no idea why this is, but the only place I ever read about any of these things is on this here blog.

Joy Cardin never calls me (despite WPR's election website frequently linking here, for which I am grateful, as it generates loads of views).

P.S. Your humble scribe won't claim by his presence there to lend WPR in turn added cachet, but I gotta admit it's darnedly tempting.

* Proving even to this observer at least a tenuous grasp on reality.

Justice Prosser intends to Rage, rage

While devotees of the bard Cringe, cringe
I want my friends to know that come what may, I intend to follow the advice of the great Welsh poet Dylan Thomas. I do not intend to go gently into that good night. — Prosser, J.
Except it's "Do not go gentle into that good night."

You can rewrite the constitution but please don't rewrite that.

And, given at least one revelation of the justice's allegedly uncontrollable temper unearthed during the campaign, perhaps Prosser's vow to "Rage, rage" wasn't the best considered of choices.

On teh web: Prosser not first judge to butcher a Dylan.

April 18, 2011

Let's send Douglas Kmiec back to Malta

Paypal instructions to follow

Item: Reaganoid law professor's Gospel falls flat in Foggy Bottom
Kmiec announced he would resign on Aug. 15, which he pointedly noted is the Feast of the Assumption.
Good Lord above. The Virgin Kmiec ascends to Heaven from Malta.

It's a shame. The tiny island nation was the best place for him.

On superfluity and absurd results

Department of Wis. Stat. Construction
[Justice Prosser] singled out Gableman, calling him "tireless, indefatigable and brilliant." — MJS reporter Patrick Marley
But aren't tireless and indefatigable exact synonyms? So when you get to say three nice things about the guy you can only come up with two?

And there's lots and lots of brilliant lawyerly folks who don't violate the code of judicial ethics. (Some reading this right now, I bet.)

Anyway Kloppenburg needs to concede, unless the torrent of silliness* issuing from Prosser and his entourage today puts her in mind to get arbitrary and capricious, which to be honest I wouldn't blame her for.

* e.g., "'We will take every and any step to prevent this frivolous matter going forward.' ... Troupis declined to specify how he could challenge a recount request by Kloppenburg." Obviously he couldn't, because he's speaking from his dorsal regions. However Counselor Troupis should indeed know a thing or two about frivolous matters.

For it was I, Sykes, who won the Supreme Court

At least that's what the medium wave howler is claiming here.*

Sad, in a way.
So you could argue that Kloppenburg lost the election not in Waukesha, but in Milwaukee County, which failed to deliver her the votes she needed. — JRN marquee talent Charlie Sykes
I guess you could, as that's what I've been saying since February 16.

What is sad, though, is Sykes's mincing triumphalism, because what he doesn't tell you is that if his special theory has validity, then the dissembling shouter managed to impede Justice Prosser's progress in almost every single one of the Wisconsin counties he mentions, by:
Milwaukee: 11 points
Racine: 6 points
Waukesha: 8 points
Washington: 5 points
Ozaukee: 9 points
Dodge: 11 points
Fond Du Lac: 11 points
Jefferson: 10 points
Walworth: 4 points
That's how much Prosser conceded, between the general election on April 5 and the primary election on February 15, which is when Sykes commenced his 50K-watt campaign of ludicrous propagandas.

The only place which Charlie Sykes mentions that Justice Prosser didn't lose major ground during his springtime political campaign was Sheboygan County, where the politically conservative jurisprude held 'er to 63%. Journal Communications, Inc. counts ShebCo. as being within its "listening area," but maybe not so much after all.

And it's noteworthy that Sykes doesn't mention Kenosha County, equally within Sykes's 620 kHz calls-to-prayer, where Kloppenburg gained so many points (nine), she managed to wrest Prosser's victory in the primary clean from his learned hands (he went from 56% to 47%). Apparently that's a mite too inconvenient for Charlie Sykes's theory which, as noted above, is a "special" and not "general" theory.

"Special," as in, just like the theory's fabricator. Besides, ShebCo. has (mercifully) a pantload of alternatives to Sykes, as it's a wee bit closer to the considerable Green Bay market than it is to Milwaukee.

Sykes's ultimately self-defeating sense of false pride (Jeez, doesn't anybody around here read the Book of Proverbs anymore?) is part of the narrative that insists Scott Walker is super-beloved and Prosser's unimpressive 0.488603046756558% margin of victory is a resounding validation of all things conservative, Republican, and possibly even Ayn Randian (except for that bit about abortion. Oh, and Proverbs).

Charlie Sykes's right-hand wing-nut** media compadre and widely respected academic heavyweight Richard Esenberg has — naturally — taken to its weak peddling as well, albeit even less coherently. Prof. "Shark" dismisses a certain argument as "not being helpful" in spite of neither being able to bring himself to link to the argument's source nor even come close to explaining why exactly it is "not helpful."

I mean, obviously, it's not helpful to him. We knew that ages ago.

* Although the poor sod can't even manage to get his raw numbers correct. AAG JoAnne Kloppenburg won 8296 votes in Ozaukee County, not 8246 (and Charlie Sykes actually lives in Ozaukee County).

** Or is it right-wing hand-nut.

P.S. Charlie Sykes didn't win a Pulitzer Prize again today.

eta: Jay Bullock on Sykes's baseless self-aggrandizement habit.

Justice Prosser hires James Troupis

Which is intriguing because this.*

Troupis, Bopp, a Koch-funded legal outfit ... this baby's got 'em all.

Interestingly, Mike Gableman once grilled a Wisconsin lawyer about George Soros but apparently never saw fit to grill a Minnesota lawyer about David Koch. Ain't no double standards there at all, Nosiree.

* Mr. Troupis is representing every petitioner but the kitchen sink. As is our old pal Prof. Rick. Small world aina? By the way, that may look like a lot of individual respondents but that's the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board: Six judges and its general counsel.

Troupis wrote the famed "carried ... feet first" legal memorandum which even its recipient, Scott Fitzgerald, described as "comical."

This whole shebang is comical alright.

You knew it but it doesn't hurt to be reminded

Republican superstar Sarah Palin is a prodigious liar

(Which is probably why she's a Republican superstar.)

Know why Wisconsin's elections are messed up?

Because no photo ID, sez expert in all things Wisconsin John Fund.

So, yes, the solution to "over 13,000 counties and towns"* each running elections according to their own whims and Nickolai is to actually make it harder to vote, not making it easier to count votes.

It's the American Republican way: discourage the poor, the elderly, and the young (a.k.a. your most likely Democrats) from voting.

(Not surprisingly, voter ID is a Scott Walker plank. Meet the voter ID bill's sponsor Republican Jeff Stone, who allegedly provided hundreds of invalid signatures on his MKE Co. executive nomination papers.)

But then Mr. John Fund of effete East Coast media elite fame admits that even his own solution is pointless and criminality-enabling:
A new study by the office of Colorado's secretary of state, Republican Scott Gessler, has found that 11,805 State residents who were not citizens when they obtained a driver's license were registered to vote.
That's your photo ID right there, which, according to Mr. Fund's proposal, would guarantee the franchise to, e.g., Australians.**

Thanks, John Fund! Now go back to your chocolatté and your arugula.

* Editor's note: Should be "more than." Planes go "over" buildings.

** Voting by non-US citizens is a felony in Wisconsin, incidentally.

A shorter WISGOP

Ladies and gentlemen, your WISGOP:
Mark Jefferson, the Republican Party's executive director, says that he had never heard of UW Prof. William Cronon before.
Yet in a classic combination of paranoia and ignorance, the WISGOP mandarin was convinced Cronon was directing a vast left-wing cabal.

Hilarious. Thanks for all your great work, David Horowitz.*

* I have heard of him before.

April 17, 2011

What do you know, but it was Patrick Roggensack!

Calumniates the justifiably notorious Journal Communications, Inc. calumnist Patrick McIlheran:
[T]he union ... got a judge — what do you know, but it was Marilyn Sumi!
First of all, it's Maryann Sumi, but I guess you can't really blame the award-winning journalist Patagonia McIlheran, as Judge Sumi's not really been in the news much lately. Evidently Patrice McIlheran finds it comical that Judge Sumi was presiding. He doesn't give any reason why; he doesn't need to. As per usual, he's pandering to his little audience of ill-informed wing-nuts. Here's something else for them.

Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack — who comprises that court's hard-right conservative bloc together with Justices Ziegler and Gableman and more often than not Justice David Prosser — was once a judge on the District IV Court of Appeals, which presides over Dane County, which is where Judge Maryann Sumi sits. In that capacity then-Judge Roggensack heard 13 appeals of Judge Sumi's decisions.

Roggensack affirmed 11 of them, affirmed in part and reversed in part one of them, and reversed the one other. The reversal in part had to do with that portion of Judge Sumi's domestic restraining order prohibiting a stalkerish man from possessing a firearm.

However it was pure clerical, and not judicial, error:
It appears from the trial court's statements from the bench that it also found the evidence insufficient on this point, and that the firearm prohibition box was checked on the final written order by mistake. — Per curiam [by the court]
In other words, Judge Maryann Sumi was correctly non-reversible in her judicial findings, but somebody ticked the wrong box on a form.*

In her lone reversal of Judge Sumi, then-Judge Roggensack concluded that while the information provided to a defendant by an arresting officer "created some confusion," it was not erroneous information, and thus Judge Sumi had erred in determining that the defendant's demand for a blood test instead of a breath test was reasonable.

And whenever reasonableness is an issue on appeal, it's a close call.

You know that saying, "reasonable minds can disagree."

So just don't expect to be informed by the award-winning Journal Communications, Inc. journalist Patricio McIlheran that Judge Sumi was affirmed 12 out of 13 times by the most conservative justice on the State Supreme Court, as that would explode his and his disciples' disturbed political fantasies. However you will hear it here, and not through Journal Communications, Inc., which doesn't do corrections.

But thanks for all you do do, JRN.

* Not quite as erroneous as a "journalist" calling a Maryann "Marilyn."

April 16, 2011

RT'd by @edroso #notworthy

in re This afternoon's AFP Tea jamboree:
#wiunion Hope Prof. Althouse got some good footage of an anarchist placing a doily on a balustrade.
In case you haven't had the pleasure, @edroso is the Village Voice's Roy Edroso, proprietor of one of the best things on the internets.


More out-of-State agitators in Madison

Well, that was fun.

A member of the editorial board of a leading East Coast media elite newspaper came to Wisconsin to tell it how to run its elections, and Andrew Breitblart of Los Angeles, California repeatedly yelled at Wisconsinites to "Go to Hell." Also a lady from Alaska in leather boots and a bump-it screeched something about abortion and Obama also.*

And baldly lied about a "rent-a-mob trashing your Capitol."

I hope every television station in the State replays Andrew Breitblart's "Go to Hell" ranting. It tells you about everything you need to know.

Another of the vagabond nincompoops was from such jetlagged parts unknown that he wound up his abusive soliloquy with a rousing, "Thank you! And good night!" I checked my watch: It was 1:26 p.m.

As for local talent, my friend Capper informs me that WPRI "senior fellow" Christian Schneider complained that the hip musings of James T. "Hip Musings" Harris, who is an internet troll in the employ of Journal Communications, Inc., were drowned out by cowbells, which goes to show you that when given a choice between two species of cacophony, Real Wisconsinites™ have the most impeccable taste.

Even our Republican elected officials were too ashamed to present themselves alongside this dais laden with inchoate, raging hominids.

Not even Glenn Grothman! Now that's saying something.

* One may only speculate as to the genesis of this fish-clubbing** madwoman's amygdalar gesticulations, but apparently one Barack H. Obama, then a State legislator in Springfield, IL, was wary of provisions in a bill being DOA under the governor's pen by dint of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Stenberg v. Carhart.

** Reportedly in a scene from Palin's "reality" teevee series, the half-term governor advises her daughter to beat the living bejeezus out of a cod as a means of assuaging her psychological frustrations.

Or else of vicariously assuaging Palin mère's. Who the hell knows.

It's official: Prosser by 0.488603046756558%

Department of Spoken With a Straight Face
"Today, the will of the electorate is clear."
Quite the mandate.

April 15, 2011

'Why did Scott Fitzgerald lie to me?'

Prolly 'cause he's the "career politician" Sen. RoJo warned us about
"I'm a proud member of Local 20 in Brookfield. I would like to know why you lied to me. You told me that the collective bargaining that you were going to take away was a financial thing, you had to balance the budget with it."
Big Fitz gets his seat warmed up in Dodge County.*

* Prosser 61% — Kloppenburg 39% (04/05/11 official result)

Dodge County is one of those conservative strongholds where Kloppenburg gained substantially between the February primary and the April general election: 11 points. Prosser took 72% there in Feb.

So Scott Fitzgerald's ordeal at DodgeCo. is not at all surprising.

And no wonder that they're reluctant to revote the bill.

Dodge County is also home to Circuit Judge Steven G. Bauer, formerly Dodge County District Attorney Steven G. Bauer, who in the latter capacity penned this classic renunciation of Mike Gableman.

The strange case of Kilkenny v. Sumi

Oy vey, the things you find on WisOpinion sometimes.*

Top conservative blogger Cindy Kilkenny of Brookfield, Waukesha Co., Wisconsin reckons she's pulled one over on Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi. "Sumi continues to make up the law as she goes along," announces Kilkenny. This is not gonna end well for CK.

The "fairly conservative" blogger Kilkenny objects to a passage in Judge Sumi's ruling yesterday in Kathleen Falk v. Fitzwalkerstan,** which is a separate action from the ongoing Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, the latter being much discussed at this here space and elsewhere. For it was in Ozanne that Judge Sumi issued her celebrated (and [fairly] conservatively reasoned) temporary restraining order against the Fitz Van Walker consortium's twilight union-smashing shenanigans.

Judge Sumi (bestest judge name evar) wrote on April 14:
[§§] 19.97(2) and (3), Wis. Stats., grant the circuit court express authority to void action taken in violation of the open meetings law and to issue injunctive relief.
Bold Kilkenny's (in at least two equally clear senses of the word bold).

The "authority to void action" comes from § 19.97(3), whereas the "authority ... to issue injunctive relief" comes from § 19.97(2). (Note well the "and" in "and to issue injunctive relief." Kilkenny even bolded it for you.) While Judge Sumi has issued (temporary) injunctive relief in accordance with § 19.97(2), she is some ways away from "void[ing] action taken in violation of the open meetings law," as the latter remedy is the one requested at the heart of Ozanne v. Fitzgerald and Judge Sumi has yet to adjudicate the merits of Ozanne's lawsuit and therefore obviously no judgment has been entered in adjudication.

Thus there is no judgment in the following sense:
However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.
That's from § 19.97(3). Judge Sumi hasn't made any such judgment, so Kilkenny's assertions are both premature and totally irrelevant. I have no idea whether Cindy Kilkenny would be interested in retracting her bold "Sumi continues to make up the law as she goes along" announcement, but it certainly is false and borders on the comic.***

In fact I might rank it right up there with Gawker's legal advice to Sarah Palin. To paraphrase Judge Sumi, the defendants could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if they just revoted the bill.

Likewise, top WaukCo. conservative blogger Cindy Kilkenny could have just asked me. I've already been "fairly" accommodating.

* Or, the sights you see when you have no gun, as my dear departed granny (who never fired a gun in her long life) was fond of saying.

** But seriously folks, Dane County v. State of Wisconsin.

*** And it's probably too late anyways, since it's been immortalized at and by the WisOpinion.com aggregator.

eta: Cindy Kilkenny responds. But obviously I have never, ever once said or suggested any of those things. If I didn't think anybody but a "liberal elitist" would understand, then why would I try to explain it?

Take issue with the explanations, not some dreamed-up chimeras.

What motivated this post in the first place is the incredibly ill-informed — and vicious, as Bill Lueders enumerated — commentary about Judge Sumi's deliberations. Attempting to correct the public record has nothing to do with "liberal elitism" and I've tried to limn the transgressions even when committed by "conservative elitists."

(The latter example being legalist arrogance of the lowest order. Your correspondent can't even aspire to that degree of superciliousness.)

The press certainly won't do it, so somebody has to. Indeed, from where I sit, the press actively encourages the ill-informedness.

Pro-life Scott Walker affirms Roe v. Wade

"Rights come from the constitution."
That's what Blackmun said.

Media watchdogs pissed at David Haynes

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel publishes yet another editorial criticizing the Milwaukee sick leave ordinance without mentioning that Steven J. Smith, the chairman and CEO of the MJS's parent company, Journal Communications, Inc., is also an officer of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, the party that brought the lawsuit against the sick leave ordinance (and lost).