“I don’t believe they need to be in lock step”
Check out Linda Clifford’s judicial philosophy.
“Common law need(s) to evolve for a changing society,” Clifford said. “That’s called judging.”
The judicial branch of government should defend the “constitutional democracy” from the potential tyranny of a legislative or executive branch trying to weld too much authority, she said.
When asked if the state justices should defer to U.S. Supreme Court rulings on specific issues, Clifford said, “I don’t believe they need to be in lock step” with their counterparts in Washington, D.C.
Not in “lock step” with the US Supreme Court? It seems pretty clear that Clifford believes that the role of a judge is to do pretty much whatever she wants. She should be immune from the other branches of government and even from rulings from other courts. This woman doesn’t want to be a Supreme Court Justice. She wants to be a monarch.
The judicial branch of government should defend the “constitutional democracy” from the potential tyranny of a legislative or executive branch trying to weld too much authority, she said.
Owen, hard to believe you would not agree with this?
It’s what you complain about constantly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1220 hrs
Actually… I believe her statement on not being in lock step with the US Supreme Court is valid. After all, the state supreme court often times looks at cases through a different lens… the lens of the state constitution.
The wording or even the existence of an item in the state constitution is often times quite different than that of the US Constitution. In fact, state constitutions often times secure more rights much more clearly than that US Constitution. So they probably shouldn’t be in lock step.
It’s called Federalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1223 hrs
Clifford is a clown.
Posted by mickey on March 28, 2007 at 1230 hrs
pjr,
I support the three branches being equal and the existence of checks and balances. Clifford, based on this statement and previous statements, seems to support having the court be completely insulated from the other branches.
Nick,
The state court only deals with issues related to the state Constitution. They can’t make judgments on issues related to the federal constitution. At the same time, they can’t make a ruling in violation of the federal constitution. For example, the SCOTUS has ruled that minorities can’t be excluded from universities based on their race. The state supreme court can’t rule that Wisconsin’s colleges are permitted to exclude students based on race - even if they find such discrimination to be constitutional under the state constitution - because such a ruling is not in “lock step” with the SCOTUS’ decision.
Posted by Owen on March 28, 2007 at 1231 hrs
Clifford, based on this statement and previous statements, seems to support having the court be completely insulated from the other branches.
For me insulated means independent, that insures the integrity of the check and balance system in the consideration of the actions of the other two branches.
What does insulated mean to you Owen?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1239 hrs
While it’s true that the State Supreme court can’t over rule the US Court… it can make judgements based on the state constitution where there are differences… in essence where the state constitution contains rights that the US does not.
One common instance of this is in the differing interpretations of the right to bear arms. The state constitution is worded quite different. If the US court were to hypothetically say that the federal constitution does not secure a right to bear arms individually (as opposed to a collective right), the state court could say that in Wisconsin that individual right does exist based on the state constitution.
Posted by Nick on March 28, 2007 at 1253 hrs
Here is the problem with Clifford’s position: it forgets that all three branches of government are co-equal; none is supreme. It is a circle or think of the recycling triangle we all know and love so much. Each branch checks the others but is also check by the others. Modern “judicial independence” types seem to forget the second half of that system. They believe in a system that has no checks on the courts.
In the early days of the republic is was not uncommon for presidents and/or congress to declare supreme court decisions unconstitutional and proceed to ignore them.
I believe the famous line from President Jackson is: “Mr. Marshall (then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) has made his decision now let him enforce it.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1310 hrs
Joe
Here is the problem with Clifford’s position: it forgets that all three branches of government are co-equal; none is supreme. It is a circle or think of the recycling triangle we all know and love so much. Each branch checks the others but is also check by the others. Modern “judicial independence” types seem to forget the second half of that system. They believe in a system that has no checks on the courts.
I’m not sure I have read anything by Clifford that comes close to taking this position. Please share if yo do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1319 hrs
The branches of government aren’t equal. The legislative is supreme and should be. Only the legislative branch can amend the constitution, although it may have hurdeles to jump in order to do so. Ultimately, the legislative branch possess the power to dissolve the other branches.
The curious part of her statement is “... potential tyranny of a legislative…”. Seem to me the legislative branch, being elected far more frequently, and having a much more diverse composition, is far less inclined to tyranny than her lordship.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1319 hrs
Seem to me the legislative branch, being elected far more frequently, and having a much more diverse composition, is far less inclined to tyranny than her lordship.
Maybe so, in a best of all possible world of independent legislators, but often it narrows to 2 sets of partisan bobble heads fighting it out along party lines.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1332 hrs
Even that is preferable to rule by judicial decree.
Posted by Owen on March 28, 2007 at 1342 hrs
Owen, what horsecrap. So you’re good with the current doings of the Congress and State Legislature.
Whoulda thunk?, by most of your posts over the last 4-5 months. Or is it only when it is a Repulican controlled party?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1346 hrs
The judicial branch of government should defend the “constitutional democracy” from the potential tyranny of a legislative or executive branch trying to weld too much authority, she said.
How can you possibly misinterpret this? She’s simply saying one of the duties of the judicial branch is to prevent the legislature or executive branch from using the powers of their office/branch in ways that violate the rights guaranteed us by the constitution.
When asked if the state justices should defer to U.S. Supreme Court rulings on specific issues, Clifford said, “I don’t believe they need to be in lock step” with their counterparts in Washington, D.C.
There is nothing radical about this either. In no way do state supreme courts and the US supreme court see eye to eye on all issues. They could rule very differently on eminent domain issues, school funding formulas, gaming or a myriad of other items.
You’ve gotta be looking pretty hard, with some serious preconceived opinions, to find anything offensive in the snippet you took there Owen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1349 hrs
So you’re good with the current doings of the Congress and State Legislature.
No necessarily. But at least in the legislatures, public policy is hashed out and debated. That’s preferable to just having a judge determine public policy based on her own philosophy.
Posted by Owen on March 28, 2007 at 1350 hrs
a judge determine public policy
I think that’s the point of having of having 7 justices isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1355 hrs
That’s preferable to just having a judge determine public policy based on her own philosophy.
Hey, isn’t Clifford entitled to her own gut check? Or is that is that just for the circuit court branches?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1356 hrs
I think that’s the point of having of having 7 justices isn’t it?
NO! A court does not sit around and decide public policy. Period. They interpret the law. That is their function.
Posted by Owen on March 28, 2007 at 1409 hrs
They interpret the law.
My point on the 7 justices was that not one justice decides public policy by interpreting the law.
And what if not personal philosophy decides the individual interpretation of the law or ethical standard (?), some might call it a gut check for instance.
woof, woof
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1414 hrs
Huh, why is it I expect I won’t find evolving common law and defending the constitutional democracy from the potential tyranny of the legislative and executive branches in the oath a supreme court justice takes? I’ll even bet I won’t find that language in the state constitution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1628 hrs
I seem to remember in my High School Social Studies classes, the words SEPARATE, BUT EQUAL as being the cornerstone of the 3 branches. and it meant that no branch had a greater power than the other 2, but that they were there merely to keep the others’ in check.-and no I was not an MPS or RUSD Graduate-
Has something changed?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on March 28, 2007 at 1643 hrs
Hmmm…I did go to MPS schools, and I learned about that phrase in an entirely different context.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1730 hrs
The most interesting part of that quote was “...evolving common law.”
What “evolves”?
What she’s trying to say (but not saying it) is that the “common law” should “evolve” to include (e.g.) Gay Marriage, and to NOT include the right to self-defense.
Posted by dad29 on March 28, 2007 at 2053 hrs
What she’s trying to say (but not saying it) is that the “common law” should “evolve” to include (e.g.) Gay Marriage, and to NOT include the right to self-defense.
That sounds like goblin talk to me dad. Please reference a quote where Clifford has stated this position on either issue.
This whole load of BS sounds like WMD all over again.
I am also curious as to what kind of required recusals Ziegler should be subject to for any cases involving say members of the WMC or any of her other big donors/promoters. If she wins the election she clearly has profited from their contributions via the ads they have been running for her.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 2203 hrs
“Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is an insufficient amount in this day and age,”she said. “Whether the cap was categorically unconstitutional or arbitrarily too low, I think the result was correct.”
In response to pjr who was looking for something from Clifford to support our fear that she sees the court as a place to inject her positions and legislate from the bench.
(This quote is doubly troubling, as she has both said she supported this distrubing decision, but that she would not recuse herself from hearing a case on damage caps, even though her husband is a trial lawyer, which is troubling on yet another count)
I think she has inferred that the gay marriage ammendment is another place where she may be finding some rights in invisible ink that trump the ones that the voters decided on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1917 hrs
Whether the cap was categorically unconstitutional or arbitrarily too low, I think the result was correct
What if the legislature put a cap on the % of profits a company could realize before triggering some arbitrary penalty or excess profits tax? CK? I bet you would scream bloody murder. Wait you guys are already doing that with Doyle’s oil company tax. Which by the way I also think is ludicrous.
Why then should an individual have a cap on the amount they can realize from damages they have endured?
Please someone explain the difference from a constitutional perspective?
If we are talking about inferences then it would seem clear that Ziegler’s approach to ethical questions have nothing to do with the letter of the law and everything to do with a personal gut check. Her record would seem to infer that she does not check personal philosophy at the door but implements it often.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 2144 hrs
Owen, please explain this one to me.
Gary J. Tate, who was convicted in 1998 of sexually abusing a girl more than 180 times beginning when she was 10. Prosecutors sought a prison term of 20 to 30 years, while Tate’s defense attorney said five to seven years was more appropriate.
Ziegler stayed a 25-year prison term and gave the West Bend man 20 years of probation that included a year in jail.
She gave him less than HIS attorney thought was appropriate!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 0759 hrs
Oh and CK
This quote is doubly troubling, as she has both said she supported this distrubing decision, but that she would not recuse herself from hearing a case on damage caps, even though her husband is a trial lawyer, which is troubling on yet another count
This is how she was quoted in MJS. Is the paper lying?Clifford said she cannot say now whether she would step aside in such a case because her husband may retire by then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 0829 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 81
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:51 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).