Putting the “A” in “GAB”
Good.
WAUKESHA — State election officials must “take affirmative steps” to remove fake or duplicate names from recall petitions, a judge ruled Thursday, handing a victory to Republican officials who felt the Government Accountability Board wasn’t planning to be aggressive enough in vetting signatures.
Hmmm. Former GOP state senator Mac Davis sides with Republicans. I’m shocked. Three cheers for venue shopping!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2012 at 2336 hrs
Pretty sad when the only way you can get anyone, in this the GAB, to do their job is to get a court order.
Posted by bill meyers on January 06, 2012 at 0615 hrs
Awww, poor RS. It sucks when democrats are forced to do their freaking jobs huh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 0646 hrs
argumentum ad hominem, RS.
Of course, if no one engaged it that, there would be a lot fewer comments on blogs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 0738 hrs
Of course it is okay for liberal judges (but I repeat myself) in Dane County to be able to have sole jurisdiction over legal matters that involve the state legislature.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 0858 hrs
Actually, I thought Davis’ decision seemed pretty fair and objective. Characteristically un-Sumi-like.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 0931 hrs
The name Bugs Bunny has already been accepted on a previous recall petition. Kennedy acknowledged during the hearing that someone signed the cartoon character’s name last year on a petition seeking the recall of Democratic state Sen. Jim Holperin.
I thought only Democrats engaged in this sort of voter fraud?!?!? What is going on her????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 1103 hrs
VA,
Well, since the dems cheat, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to return the favor.
Your buddies opened the can of worms, now you can choke on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 1144 hrs
Ad hominem is an entirely legitimate line of argument if it provides reasonable context for the possible motivation of the party. The ruling would undoubtedly be stronger and less assailable if those motivations weren’t a relevant consideration.
But we shouldn’t pretend that Davis’ lifelong affiliation and connections shouldn’t be considered, nor should be blind to the fact that the GOP chose to file this case in Waukesha County precisely so it could get a judge like Davis.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 06, 2012 at 1208 hrs
RS- but you never addressed the merits of the ruling. You can use it in support of your conclusion, but not as the proof.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 1318 hrs
GMan, you actually know nothing about me or my “buddies.” I do know that you have no sense of morality and are a dick, however.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 1359 hrs
Similarly, Owen’s highly sophisticated analysis is also not reliant on the ruling itself, but simply that a Republican judge has come to the same conclusion as he prejudged would be appropriate.
My point isn’t whether Davis’ ruling is valid or invalid, but that in delivering a message, who delivers it matters in the arena of public opinion. No matter how well reasoned Davis’ opinion may be, people have a legitimate reason to wonder if his partisan history may have steered him in a particular direction when another equally valid but contradictory position may also have been reasonably concluded from legal precedent. Similarly, others will defend Davis because it is in agreement with what one already posits should be the correct course of action, or because it favors their own partisan bent.
When it comes to poor attempts at legal analysis in the blogosphere, it’s funny how so many creatures of the web seem always to agree 100% with conservative jurists or 100% with liberal jurists. Methinks those individuals aren’t really concerned about quality jurisprudence but more about the courts giving them their way.
The reality of the court, whether so-called strict constructionists like it or not, is that there’s not always one right answer in matters of legal interpretation. And who is doing the adjudicating matters. Presumably that’s why we have messy elections and confirmation battles for judges, right? Because if the answers were obvious, we wouldn’t even need courts in the first place.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 06, 2012 at 1457 hrs
RS, so basically it is preferable for the Dane County partisan judges to rule but not the partisan Waukesha County judges? Typical lefty thinking. It’s good for me but not for thee!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 1546 hrs
Funny, but I’m not a lefty. My voting record would prove that. So would my employment history. Anyone who reads my comments or my blog would know this. Does your knee hurt, the way it jerks uncontrollably like that?
These cases all go through the same appellate process anyway, so as someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, I’m all for locating the venue in whatever happens to be the least expensive venue for government to do its business. That is typically the city or county where the unit of government locates its resources.
I would feel the same way regardless of the partisan bent of any particular city, county, or state capital. If some unwashed hippie from Spring Green slips in an icy crosswalk in West Bend, I don’t think West Bend taxpayers should have to pay to send their city attorney to Sauk County to defend their financial interests because it’s cheaper/better for the aggrieved party to file the case closer to home.
The venue for action involving any government should be the seat of government. No exceptions - not for private citizens, not for political parties, not for accused legislative felons who are looking for a better plea bargain.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 06, 2012 at 1654 hrs
“The venue for action involving any government should be the seat of government.”
I disagree. The appropriate vanue is often the geographical location of the defendant, but it can also be the location of the plaintiff. It can also be the location of the offense. There are often several venues that can argue appropriate jurisdiction and there’s no reason that the fact that a government is involved overrides that circumstance.
For example, if I’m a homeowner in Ashland County who feels the need to sue the DNR because of a wetlands ruling, why should it automatically fall to me to have to travel to Dane County to plead my case? Both the offense and the plaintiff reside in Ashland County and there’s a good case that the venue should be there. The only reason to have the case be heard in Dane County is as a convenience to DNR officials - many of which likely reside in Ashland County and would have to travel for the trial anyway!
Your assertion of the appropriate venue is inappropriate.
Posted by Owen on January 06, 2012 at 1715 hrs
RS,
Ad hominem is not legitimate and should always be discouraged. An AH attack does not provide context for an argument. An argument is a series of premises, a conclusion, and the underlying reasoning. All an AH attack does is distract individuals from reasoning on the issue and has them concentrate on an individual. Who cares if the person presenting the issue is a hypocrite, a sinner, or a saint. None of those characteristics strengthens or weakens an argument.
If you are unable to reason or you are on the wrong side of the issue, go ahead and point at the messenger and hope nobody notices.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 1836 hrs
Owen, I’ll play along.
The GAB is based in Dane County. The petitions will be submitted in Dane County. The petitions will be reviewed in Dane County. Any recall that is authorized will be authorized in Dane County. The governor’s residence is in Dane County. The governor’s family residence is in Milwaukee County. The governor’s campaign committee uses a mailing address in Dane County.
So of course, the logical venue for the case is Waukesha County?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 06, 2012 at 2211 hrs
RS,
Do you believe the judges in Dane County are unbiased and rule strictly according to the law?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2012 at 2246 hrs
Is it really shocking that judge-shopping exists, RS? I guess you could argue whether or not it’s “right”, but you can’t deny it’s been done for decades - maybe centuries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2012 at 0905 hrs
Is it really shocking that judge-shopping exists, RS? I guess you could argue whether or not it’s “right”, but you can’t deny it’s been done for decades - maybe centuries.
Posted by cynical on January 07, 2012 at 0905 hrsCorrect me if I am wrong, but wasn’t a law just recently passed that allows for this now? I always thought cases being taken against state gov’t. or a state gov’t entity had to be processed in Dane County - until recently, that is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2012 at 1423 hrs
I was referring to judge shopping in general, Vinny, not specifically about this particular issue. My point was I see nothing particularly wrong with seeking a venue at which you have the best chance to prevail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2012 at 1703 hrs
Owen:
There are often several venues that can argue appropriate jurisdiction and there’s no reason that the fact that a government is involved overrides that circumstance.
I was referring to judge shopping in general, Vinny, not specifically about this particular issue. My point was I see nothing particularly wrong with seeking a venue at which you have the best chance to prevail.
This reasoning is precisely why the fact that Government is involved is relevant Owen. ‘Government’ is everywhere in the state. All you need is party control of one district and you move all rulings there? An individual would not have this option.
The irony for me is that I understand and in this case approve of the decision to change venues because it is a pretty foregone conclusion that judges in the appropriate district are fully willing to follow a single bad precedent somewhere in history to support their biased view rather than follow any sort of common sense. The precedent of a Gov’t body moving rulings to anywhere they have a favorable judge, however, is a slap in the face to all judges, though. That’s good too because most of them need it, again and again until impartiality again has meaning in the courts.
RS, I wouldn’t want to send this ruling request to any judge who thinks it is okay to accept Bugs Bunny on a recall list, just because it has been accepted in the past. Especially if we know the ruling would have been the exact opposite from the same judge if a Democrat were Governor now. It is a sad commentary on our Judiciary that this was ever an issue in the first place. You are right and wrong IMO. You are right that the venue was moved to a place where the bias was pro-Republican on purpose. I think you are wrong, though, that it is particularly relevant. As long as judges stay this polarized, a judge ruling in Dane County is a foregone conclusion. What are other options if we don’t want 6 month delays on all of our state government decisions that are not liberal in nature?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2012 at 1000 hrs
Sorry, the second quote was cynical, not Owen. I knew that, I still should have labeled it, though, because it looks like they are both Owen quotes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2012 at 1002 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:08 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).