By a vote of 3-3, one abstention.
Esenberg acknowledged that in seeking to undo the governor’s line-item vetoes WILL is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn long-standing precedent–one the group did not seek to overturn when Gov. Scott Walker was in office.
Discover & share this Slap GIF with everyone you know. GIPHY is how you search, share, discover, and create GIFs.
Alan Robinson is trying to make marijuana mainstream.
[O]n 6/6/2019 a Dane County Jury provided justice in the form of a $15 million verdict for the family of 23 year old Emilly Zhu who was struck and killed while riding her bicycle inside a marked crosswalk.
I find no issue with trying to avoid disenfranchising voters. And certainly the logistics in these cases is always problematic but Wisconsin has done hundreds of these special elections over the years under very similar circumstances. I read somewhere else that there might be about 100 such voters who may be affected. But there was never any concern shown or voiced for the tens of thousands of voters disenfranchised by NOT holding the special elections…all of those Wisconsin residents who live in the affected districts. Those residents who don’t have representation.
State appellate judge Paul Reilly, (a Waukesha Republican), humiliated Scott Walker in denying Walker’s desperate motion by pointing out, “Representative government and the election of our representatives are never ‘unnecessary,’ never a ‘waste of taxpayer resources.'”
If Reilly were trying to edify Scott Walker, he would have better luck shouting at the wind.
In a victory for this case, [Clean Water, Inc. and Lynda A. Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources et al (Wisconsin Case No. 2015CV002633)], we are pleased to share the July 14, 2016 Circuit Court [Judge John W. Markson’s] decision that affirms the petitioners’ and partner organization Clean Wisconsin’s argument before the court that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ rejection of the Division of Hearings and Appeals’ Administrative Law Judge’s order to include animal unit limits and off-site groundwater monitoring of Kewaunee County CAFO was unlawful. This decision also describes how the Department of Justice’s narrow interpretation of Act 21 – that the DNR did not have explicit authority to impose these permit conditions – was incorrect and that state statutes do empower the DNR to require limits and monitoring of pollution in order for permitees to comply with state and federal clean water laws.
But more importantly, in the recusal area, the Court’s concern is not limited to the potential for a “quid pro quo.” Rather, the constitutional inquiry is directed to any circumstance in which a judge’s ability to be impartial might be questioned. Substantial and impactful campaign support can create a “debt of gratitude” that creates an unconstitutionally high appearance or risk of bias. But that’s not the only source of bias. The Court made clear that the due process clause requires“a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” to determine whether there is “such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment” that recusal is required.
….a fellow named Bill Cunningham, who had dinner with Scalia–who told him that ‘in the end, it all comes down to two words.’
Those two words?
Michael J. Hicks.