tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post507472862362066222..comments2023-10-28T04:06:59.629-05:00Comments on Plaisted Writes: WMC Slowly Builds Phony Case Against ButlerMike Plaistedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18184502941014520240noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-45688282397022433312008-01-17T11:11:00.000-06:002008-01-17T11:11:00.000-06:00When did "New Federalism" become the boogyman in t...When did "New Federalism" become the boogyman in the closet? Aren't Conservatives supposed to be all about state rights? Or is that just when state rights is code for pro-segregation policy; when state rights start working for minorities, the poor and the accused, those rights are transformed into "New Federalism" and subsequently vilified. For the whole of our nation's history, SCOTUS has set the floor on Constitutional rights, but the states have been allowed to go above that floor. It's only a boogyman when the state actually decides to do things movement conservative's judicial arm doesn't like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-43079849440908327352008-01-17T08:10:00.000-06:002008-01-17T08:10:00.000-06:00MikeHere's my problem. You could have argued that ...Mike<BR/><BR/>Here's my problem. You could have argued that SCOWIS should have interpreted the Wisconsin Constitution to require more than the US Constitution.<BR/><BR/>But you didn't do that. You chose to suggest that one of our students doesn't know how to read a case. In doing so, you characterized the case in a way that is just flat out wrong and the very guy that you are defending, Justice Butler, says so. He wrote in Knapp, that DuBose "departed from current federal law."<BR/> <BR/><BR/>His words. Not mine.<BR/><BR/>And he's right.<BR/><BR/>You certainly know that the Biggers-Braithwaite approach required courts to look at the reliability of the identification before excluding the evidence something that the court in DuBose said Stovall did not require. Even if Stovall wasn't explicitly overruled, subsequent cases that read it to require that analysis are authoritative.<BR/><BR/>Justice Crooks, who wrote the decision you are defending, recognized that when he wrote that after Biggers and Braithwaite, the test for showups "evolved" into "an inquiry into unnecessary suggestiveness to an inquiry of impermissible suggestiveness, while forgiving impermissible suggestiveness if the identification could be said to be reliable."<BR/><BR/>He then said that Biggers and Braithwaite (the most current and controlling SCOTUS precedents)were inadequate and SCOWIS would not follow it in interpreting substantially identical language in the state constitution, saying that they would "return" to Stovall and use an approach that he conceded is no longer the current federal practice.<BR/><BR/>Again: <I>The very guy that you are defending, Justice Butler, recognized this when he said, in Knapp, that DuBose "departed from current federal law."</I><BR/><BR/>I am sorry to go all "legal on your ass" but when you suggest that one of our students is incompetent and you're wrong, I am going to call you on it.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-59865343503608796072008-01-16T22:35:00.000-06:002008-01-16T22:35:00.000-06:00Yeh, being appointed to the state's highest court ...Yeh, being appointed to the state's highest court is a real career ender, John P.<BR/><BR/>Tell it to the judge appointed to it 30 years ago -- the top judge, the chief justice of our state's highest court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-45615401126832879532008-01-15T19:42:00.000-06:002008-01-15T19:42:00.000-06:00Any chances of Wisconsin media reporting on this h...Any chances of Wisconsin media reporting on this hit squad? It looks like an organized smear job, above and beyond the typical partisan campaigning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-55761214834480428262008-01-15T17:22:00.000-06:002008-01-15T17:22:00.000-06:00Mike:It does not worry me in the least. I just do...Mike:<BR/><BR/>It does not worry me in the least. I just do not think it matters that Justice Butler is black. I will not vote for him because he is a liberal, white or black. <BR/><BR/>I seem to recall that he was crushed when he tried to get elected in 2000. He is only on the court because Doyle appointed him. <BR/><BR/>If the majority of the people in this State agree with his judicial philosophy, then so be it. I just hope his race does not enter into it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-39934669275831090142008-01-15T15:22:00.000-06:002008-01-15T15:22:00.000-06:00Why does that worry you, John? Are you worried th...Why does that worry you, John? Are you worried that you might be perceived as trying to take down a historic, accomplished jurist in Wisconsin? I can see why that might be a concern for you. Not my problem.Mike Plaistedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18184502941014520240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20755638.post-76682215951180481292008-01-15T14:28:00.000-06:002008-01-15T14:28:00.000-06:00Mike:Why do you have to point out that Justice But...Mike:<BR/><BR/>Why do you have to point out that Justice Butler is an Afro-American? Why should that even matter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com