Wisconsin Supreme Court Ends "John Doe" Reign of Terror

[dismal]

My evidence is that posts like this show you have no evidence there is any evidence that shows probable cause.

Translation: I am rubber, you are glue. Everything bounces off me and sticks on you. Even the monkey poo.

It's more like: no evidence is a sign of a lack of evidence.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Translation: I am rubber, you are glue. Everything bounces off me and sticks on you. Even the monkey poo.

It's more like: no evidence is a sign of a lack of evidence.

I'm still waiting for your objective evidence.

 

[ksen]

How did "objective argument" turn into "objective evidence?"

And what is an "objective argument" anyway?

 

[arkirk]

This court is loaded up with Koch Bros. sponsored justices. I cannot think of a place that has descended so badly in terms of its public functions as Wisconsin. Walker is the Koch's man and they will buy justices to keep him out of trouble...and perhaps put him in the President's chair if we let them. Whether it is union busting or cuttin public education Walker knows no peers.

 

[dismal]

How did "objective argument" turn into "objective evidence?"

And what is an "objective argument" anyway?

It was found by lower courts and affirmed by the WSC that these prosecutors subpoenaed enormous amounts of irrelevant personal information and conducted intimidating SWAT style raids without probable cause.

Relevant rebuttals to this might be:

1) False-a-mundo diz, there was probable cause for Crime X (list probable cause)
2) Nope-a-reenio diz, all this personal information gathered was absolutely relevant to the investigation of Crime X (list relevant crimes)
3) Incorrect-o-matic diz, the SWAT style raids were necessary because Y (list reason for SWAT style raids)

Arguments not rooted in specific facts of the case would include things like:

1) ZMFOG Republicans111!!12
2) KOch Brotherz11!@"
3) OMG Scott Waleker!!!2312
4) ITZZ tehh partisanship!@@1

I hope that helps.

 

[maxparrish]

Do you have some objective argument that suggests the decision in question were not politically motivates shams?

That's not how it works. If you want to collect every personal detail of someone's life conduct predawn paramilitary style raids in which you detain them and their kids you need to have probable cause some crime has occurred, and some theory that makes the evidence specifically relevant.

The burden is on you.

What probable cause did they have?

They openly advocate against progressive causes and candidates, ergo, they have committed a crime...or something like that.

 

[jab]

I'm wondering how whether or not the investigations were politically motivated matters even a little bit to the impartiality of the judges who had received large donations from the same groups that also gave large donations to Scott Walker?

I know what you are inferring and "good ol' boys" network is a racial slur no matter how apt the term is.

i'm not sure where you're getting this from

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.wisdc.org/pr071615a.php

The four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who just dismissed the John Doe investigation concerning alleged coordination between Scott Walker and so-called outside groups were aided enormously by some of the very groups that were party to the John Doe case.

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Club for Growth, and Citizens for a Strong America—all of which are reportedly embroiled in the John Doe--together spent more than $8 million in support of Justice Patience Roggensack, Justice Annette Ziegler, Justice Michael Gableman, and Justice David Prosser.

“It boggles the mind that these justices are essentially saying that they can somehow be impartial when these parties to the case were spending huge wads of cash to get them elected,” says Matt Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “This doesn’t pass the smell test. The initials WMC are practically embroidered on their seats.”

Nope, no conflict of interest there. I'm sure they were impartial.

A little background:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has always been 10 year elected positions. Historically it has tended to be low-key affairs, with candidates running without party labels. None the less, left and right groups have always contributed to the campaigns of those running, resulting in the election of three strong left of center justices and four center-rightists.

In 2011, the relentless anti-Walker campaign broke new partisan territory when the public union forces and their left wing allies recruited left-wing Kloppenburg to unseat right of center Justice Prosser. As a protege' of Abramson, a well know hard core leftist on the court, Kloppenburg's challenge was attempt to seize partisan judicial power to overturn Walker and undue the legislatures reforms.

Activist groups and unions from in and outside of Wisconsin contributed to both sides, spending millions. Kloppenburg narrowly lost. A more recent judicial election was a little less partisan with no significant contributions from sources outside of Wisconsin.

Whether or not electing judges is a good idea (and I tend to think that a highly modified form of elections and/or term appointments might be wise), it is the reality of Wisconsin. And, one should note, that all the Justices deciding this case were originally elected long before Walker became governor.

Finally, the majority seems to be no more prejudice than prior State and Federal judges Peterson and Randa, who also ruled against the left wing goon squad "secret" investigations.

 

[dismal]

Plus, contemplate the absurdity of launching 20+ secret, bogus, abusive investigations to intimidate and stifle the speech of conservative groups and then claiming conservative justices should recuse themselves because the groups you are abusing are conservative.

 

[maxparrish]

Plus, contemplate the absurdity of launching 20+ secret, bogus, abusive investigations to intimidate and stifle the speech of conservative groups and then claiming conservative justices should recuse themselves because the groups you are abusing are conservative.

It is a typical disingenuous argument of the left, and an excellent tactic for the authoritarian minded. Make the judiciary electorally political and partisan, and then after seeking faux charges against one's political enemies (virtually every conservative group in the State) demand that only the partisan funded enemies on the court sit in judgement.

Shameless.

PS - By the way, if such a rule had been in effect, there would have not been a quorum to sit, and the judgement would have defaulted back to the state judge (Peterson) who had already imposed an injunction on the investigation.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Walker and his dark money groups can conspire all they want; none of that will give him the warm fuzzies he needs to be a crossover candidate.

The Kochs think they can elect Mr. Potter from Its a Wonderful Life with their money.

 

[arkirk]

Plus, contemplate the absurdity of launching 20+ secret, bogus, abusive investigations to intimidate and stifle the speech of conservative groups and then claiming conservative justices should recuse themselves because the groups you are abusing are conservative.

It is a typical disingenuous argument of the left, and an excellent tactic for the authoritarian minded. Make the judiciary electorally political and partisan, and then after seeking faux charges against one's political enemies (virtually every conservative group in the State) demand that only the partisan funded enemies on the court sit in judgement.

Shameless.

PS - By the way, if such a rule had been in effect, there would have not been a quorum to sit, and the judgement would have defaulted back to the state judge (Peterson) who had already imposed an injunction on the investigation.

Max and Dismal: You guys can wink at conflict of interest till the cows come home and it still is conflict of interest. You both seem to be possesed by an abiding faith that whomever can amass enough money to buy the government and the courts are the parties who should by all rights rule the country. This kind of thinking does not bode well for the environmental or social future of our country. Why are you so blind to your own prejudice? Is it just a case of the unexamined life full of unexamined motivations? or do you guys consciously seek bad outcomes for a majority of the human race?

 

[dismal]

It is a typical disingenuous argument of the left, and an excellent tactic for the authoritarian minded. Make the judiciary electorally political and partisan, and then after seeking faux charges against one's political enemies (virtually every conservative group in the State) demand that only the partisan funded enemies on the court sit in judgement.

Shameless.

PS - By the way, if such a rule had been in effect, there would have not been a quorum to sit, and the judgement would have defaulted back to the state judge (Peterson) who had already imposed an injunction on the investigation.

Max and Dismal: You guys can wink at conflict of interest till the cows come home and it still is conflict of interest. You both seem to be possesed by an abiding faith that whomever can amass enough money to buy the government and the courts are the parties who should by all rights rule the country. This kind of thinking does not bode well for the environmental or social future of our country. Why are you so blind to your own prejudice? Is it just a case of the unexamined life full of unexamined motivations? or do you guys consciously seek bad outcomes for a majority of the human race?

Are you simply not capable of considering the democrat prosecutor is capable of prosecutorial abuse?

Does your religious belief tell you crimes were committed and evidence existed to justify SWAT style raids against conservative groups when no one seems to be able to say what that evidence is?

 

[maxparrish]

It is a typical disingenuous argument of the left, and an excellent tactic for the authoritarian minded. Make the judiciary electorally political and partisan, and then after seeking faux charges against one's political enemies (virtually every conservative group in the State) demand that only the partisan funded enemies on the court sit in judgement.

Shameless.

PS - By the way, if such a rule had been in effect, there would have not been a quorum to sit, and the judgement would have defaulted back to the state judge (Peterson) who had already imposed an injunction on the investigation.

Max and Dismal: You guys can wink at conflict of interest till the cows come home and it still is conflict of interest. You both seem to be possesed by an abiding faith that whomever can amass enough money to buy the government and the courts are the parties who should by all rights rule the country. This kind of thinking does not bode well for the environmental or social future of our country. Why are you so blind to your own prejudice? Is it just a case of the unexamined life full of unexamined motivations? or do you guys consciously seek bad outcomes for a majority of the human race?

As you have not shown the slightest interest in understanding contrary beliefs, or in reconciling the sincerity of those contrary beliefs with your cartoonish rants against fictional boogeymen, why do you bother to ask us?

The reality of Wisconsin is that the people chose to elect those who will affect their well-being (their self-interest), all of them getting votes and funds from the self-interested to make and enforce laws for the self-interested - its called Democracy. That they include the Supreme Court as a part of the elected "conflict of interest" is, for better or worse, their only and final arbitrator of the law.

As with any judicial opinion, the only measure of their integrity is in their argument and ruling. And should you ever let your eyes fall upon a few pages of their opinion and/or our quoted excerpts, the merits of their ruling is nearly self-evident.

You can do that, or you can continue to rant about other's "unexamined motivations".

 

[laughing dog]

Max and Dismal: You guys can wink at conflict of interest till the cows come home and it still is conflict of interest. You both seem to be possesed by an abiding faith that whomever can amass enough money to buy the government and the courts are the parties who should by all rights rule the country. This kind of thinking does not bode well for the environmental or social future of our country. Why are you so blind to your own prejudice? Is it just a case of the unexamined life full of unexamined motivations? or do you guys consciously seek bad outcomes for a majority of the human race?

As you have not shown the slightest interest in understanding contrary beliefs, or in reconciling the sincerity of those contrary beliefs with your cartoonish rants against fictional boogeymen, why do you bother to ask us?

The reality of Wisconsin is that the people chose to elect those who will affect their well-being (their self-interest), all of them getting votes and funds from the self-interested to make and enforce laws for the self-interested - its called Democracy. That they include the Supreme Court as a part of the elected "conflict of interest" is, for better or worse, their only and final arbitrator of the law.

As with any judicial opinion, the only measure of their integrity is in their argument and ruling. And should you ever let your eyes fall upon a few pages of their opinion and/or our quoted excerpts, the merits of their ruling is nearly self-evident.

Your analysis assumes of level of awareness and sophistication on the part of the voting electorate (especially in the case of electing judges) that is inconsistent with your views on many other topics. Hmmm.

 

[maxparrish]

As you have not shown the slightest interest in understanding contrary beliefs, or in reconciling the sincerity of those contrary beliefs with your cartoonish rants against fictional boogeymen, why do you bother to ask us?

The reality of Wisconsin is that the people chose to elect those who will affect their well-being (their self-interest), all of them getting votes and funds from the self-interested to make and enforce laws for the self-interested - its called Democracy. That they include the Supreme Court as a part of the elected "conflict of interest" is, for better or worse, their only and final arbitrator of the law.

As with any judicial opinion, the only measure of their integrity is in their argument and ruling. And should you ever let your eyes fall upon a few pages of their opinion and/or our quoted excerpts, the merits of their ruling is nearly self-evident.

Your analysis assumes of level of awareness and sophistication on the part of the voting electorate (especially in the case of electing judges) that is inconsistent with your views on many other topics. Hmmm.

I am not advocating for their particular system - I am explaining it's workings and expectations.

 

[laughing dog]

Your analysis assumes of level of awareness and sophistication on the part of the voting electorate (especially in the case of electing judges) that is inconsistent with your views on many other topics. Hmmm.

I am not advocating for their particular system - I am explaining it's workings and expectations.

If that is how the system works, then clearly people have no business complaining about the ACA or the US "policy" on illegal immigration, since both are the result of democracy.