May 26 2011

Guilty: Judicial Political Activism In Wisconsin

Published by at 9:04 pm under All General Discussions

Weird – this was a finished post at one point?? Here is another ‘finished’ version

While I and one of my siblings are engineers, much of the family hails from law – some even politics. So please don’t assume this little old rocket scientist is clueless on matters of law.

What we have in Wisconsin this week is a clear cut case of political, judicial activism in a recent ruling in WI:

A Dane County judge has struck down Gov. Scott Walker’s legislation repealing most collective bargaining for public employees.

In a 33-page decision issued Thursday, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said she would freeze the legislation because GOP lawmakers on a committee broke the state’s open meetings law in passing it March 9.

Ozanne agreed that the court case is still far from settled.

“It’s not over yet. I’m positive of that,” Ozanne said. “The supremes are the supremes. They can do what they want.”

This judge has shown pathetic judgement and should be stripped of her robes. There are multiple reasons why her actions indicate a judge who has sunk to all time lows.

First off, the claim against the law is against the process – not the law itself. The law is not unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination. Failure of process (if there was one) would not be enough to hold up implementing the law, unless the failed process produced a result the normal process would not have. But of course we all know the law was going to pass no matter what.

We know this because the Democrats ran from the state to try and stop the inevitable vote they were going to lose. We know this because the legislature stripped provisions requiring a large quorum so the GOP could pass the statute without Democrats present. We know this because, if the vote was held today, the Dems would have to run away again or lose the vote again.

So the process would not impact the result, and the judge should have recognized this if she really was qualified to be a judge.

Moreover, there is no indication the person bringing the claim ever attempted to avail themselves of that element of the process they claim did not happen? If the claimant was one of those who ran from Wisconsin, or never attempted to utilize the part of the process supposedly missing, then they have no standing. My guess is it will take little time to figure out the claim is bogus. Strike 2 against this pathetic excuse for a judge.

And finally, you can tell by the way she surrenders to the state supreme court’s highly experienced and respected jurists, that she knows her decision is a crock. Her effort at immoral judicial activism was born of malicious forethought. She does not deserve the high office she occupies.

Update: The venerable Ed Morrissey has some good observations on this fiasco

13 responses so far

13 Responses to “Guilty: Judicial Political Activism In Wisconsin”

  1. dhunter says:

    Rob = Robe.

    How about a thread on McCain and Kerry teaming up to pull OBlahBlahs chestnuts out of the fire on Lybia without making him defend or define his illegal kentic bombathon in Lybia?

  2. lurker9876 says:

    This judge is unethical in her judgement of this case. Her ruling is weak; yet, intentional favoring the Democrats and the big labor.

    Her ruling is as expected and no surprise.

    Somebody said that the Republicans cannot appeal this ruling, which I don’t understand but I think one Republican attorney did file a case or the Republicans will find another way.

    The Republicans can always do another vote. The question is…is it the right thing to do? It’ll be a done deal, though.

  3. WWS says:

    This is a long term problem that will need to be faced, but not until the other branches of government are secured;

    The judiciary will need to be cleansed.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    wws, with NY26 in mind, do you really think we can secure all three houses and the judicial branch?

  5. Redteam says:

    Sarah will be in!!! Sarah will Win!!! go Sarah!!!

  6. ivehadit says:

    And how much money is this judicial activism costing the U.S. taxpayer?!

    I have had ENOUGH. Have you?

  7. WWS says:

    Taking back the Federal system isn’t that hard – it just requires holding the House, +4 in the Senate, and a win in the presidency. +14 in the Senate if you want to neutralize the filibuster. But ordinary methods will be too slow with so many lifetime appointments out there.

    Also, understand that in Wisconsin this is a State judge, not a federal judge. We have a systemic problem on multiple levels. It’s come about because the left has spent the last 40 years turning the judiciary into the 2nd legislative branch. That is unprecedented, and will take an appropriate response to cure.

    What I’m thinking of is something unprecedented, and probably impossible except in the throes of a true crisis: mandatory resignation and re-appointment of *all* judges, on both a state and federal level. Combined with massive reform, probably a constitutional amendment, dictating when judges can and cannot override legislative and executive decisions.

    A true purge.

  8. MerlinOS2 says:

    By in state rules of the court this judge should have recused herself simply because her son is a union member.

    One of the prime examples of how our legal system is gamed and lamed where liberal judges hope and usually get a precedent they can wave about to get even more egregious precedents built on a house of cards simply because SCOTUS can’t review every case and can only pick out the worst of the worst.

    So you stack junk on top of trash and declare that the law and the immutable truth.

    Meanwhile the Indiana SCOTUS basically threw the 4th amendment on the dustbin of history and the real SCOTUS did another decision that said ‘hell ya we agree’.

    Then there was that little deal where Ca has to release 30k plus out of their prisons into the general population which of course will only be just in time to join ACORN in a get out the vote effort or something else!

    Think ACORN is dead and gone…………yeah I got that one it is just renamed and still kicking all you have to do is your homework to see that.

  9. MerlinOS2 says:

    Even Harry Reid let the cat out of the bag when he was pushing the Goodwin Liu for a judicial appointment. He stated that this nomination should go forward since the seat was important to where law was MADE.

    That explores the whole area of too many precedents being thrown out there by activist judges to salt the legal gold mine. A death by a thousand paper cuts offense. A Cloward -Piven overload the system game plan.

    Who cares if it is junk science and just pure crap we have a decision we can point to that hasn’t been reversed so yeah we are gold and good and on target!

    Blago would be proud.

  10. MerlinOS2 says:

    In my lifetime the courts have played this whole ,we can do it to be activist and just hope it doesn’t get reviewed game.

    Also the Federal Register has grown from one volume to where it now by recent measurement takes up 30 feet of shelf space just to contain all the volumes.

    Would any one care to estimate just how many more volumes will be added to that to implement a 2000 plus page law? I have seen 4 page laws grow into 2000 pages of regulations so don’t imagine where this one could all go.

  11. MerlinOS2 says:

    Why that all works is because simply that judicial decisions and federal regulations are two of the best ways to cure insomnia if you pursue them.

    They are hidden in plain sight.

    Eyes glaze over for even those that follow them and forget any clue from the average ‘man on the street’, hell as talk show host have proved those people can’t even name who the Governor of their state is.

  12. MerlinOS2 says:

    Face it we have a political system where all the incumbents have a advantage and a game plan. It perpetuates the same old ways and the same old ‘important supporters’

    To root out an intrenched ‘man of the people’ is a hard row to hoe.

    It happens now and then but is the exception to the rule.

    Over reach from government is endemic and not just systemic it is something that just is.

    The idea of breaking down government unions to reduce their power is only a side game. What is wrong is the whole concept of government by fiat and regulations. Attacking the unions is only a feeble attempt at reversing something that is much more pervasive. Not that it shouldn’t be done it should be simply because of the logic but it is not the solution as so many wish it was.

    We have bigger problems in the whole system that is now ‘too big to succeed’ and that is where we kneecap ourselves.

    Fun is not an option.

  13. WWS says:

    Good points all, Merlin. I especially note where you mention Cloward-Pivin overload and government by fiat. I’ve spent a long time trying to figure out where their this all is leading, and think I can see the final destination. Not even the leftists understand what they’ve done, but it isn’t going to be a very good place for any of us.

    When laws are simple and understandable, they act as a brake on the judiciary, which must follow them or be publicly condemned. When the law is clear, it’s easy to tell a good judge from a bad one. Precedent is important for the same reason. Since the Judiciary is the only branch that we allow to have the absolute power of decree, our system has always had built-in methods to limit that power. But now, the only way to counteract all of the bad precedents that have been installed is to drop the idea of precedent altogether. What leftists have done, by working so hard to install so many bad precedents is to force even conservatives judges now to throw away one of the most important restraints on judicial behavior. The left has destroyed the idea of “Precedent” itself as something to be valued.

    When you don’t have precedent, all you have left is the codified law, which is one reason it has expanded to so many thousands of pages. But there’s an even *bigger* problem with that – one of the first things lawyers learn is that with so many thousands of pages of regulations, you can *always* find one part that will contradict another part. Legal arguments cease being about what is right, but rather about who can sell their own interpretation over the other sides interpretation, and because the law is so complex, there are *always* an infinite number of interpretations possible. In that kind of system, the possibility of absolute “right” and “wrong” ceases to exist – there are only ever-varying interests and preferences.

    The reason Judges are taught to value Precedent is that without it, each individual Judge becomes his own little Emperor, ruling by decree however he sees fit. A Judge is supposed to follow the law – but what does he do when no clear law exists anymore, only 1,000 shades of possibility? He does whatever he wants to do, of course.

    Why can a handful of Judges decree that 30,000 felons be set free? Why can a New Jersey Court supersede the Governor and the Legislature and decree government funding levels? Not because anyone thinks that is a good system, not because any of the people anywhere support that way of doing things, and not even because anyone thinks these are particularly good ideas. No one does. They can do that because we have created a judicial system that has no brakes at all anymore. They do it because they have the Power to do it, and no one has the power to say “no”. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we have now given our judiciary absolute power. They are no longer our Judges, but our Emperors.

    And of course, once Judges become Emperors they answer to no one but themselves. When nothing is absolute, *Everything* is justified. When the system is overloaded (aka Cloward-Pivin) everything begins to break down, because there are no other choices left. Where Cloward and Pivin got it wrong is that they believed some new, higher order would arise from the chaos. They are in error – there will only be Chaos, ruled over not by one High Emperor but by 1,000 petty Emperors, each carving out his own little domain.

    This is how democracy dies, not with a bang but a whimper.