From the Pen of Justice Butler
Written by Daniel on January 13, 2008 – 2:00 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Judicial philosophies matter. The reasoning employed by judges when they make decisions has consequences. Court decisions affect the safety, prosperity, and culture of our state. But the reasoning employed by judges in coming to those decisions can strike at the very heart of our constitutional system of government.
Justice Louis Butler is up for election in April. It will be the first time he faces the voters of the state after his three years on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In order to help opinion-leaders and observant voters understand Justice Butler’s record, I have read all of his opinions where there was a divergence on the Court. I have selected just over twenty cases where Justice Butler’s opinion was substantive and the contrast with the other opinions was stark. In the first ever GOP3.com: Research Briefing, From the Pen of Justice Butler, which is available as a PDF file, I have summarized these cases and drawn some conclusions. I encourage you to read the Briefing and hope it gives you a better understanding of Justice Butler’s judicial philosophy. I also plan to post several more Research Briefings on the recent jurisprudence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in coming weeks.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- WisEye in Wis Lawyer - November 16th, 2008
- 2nd MU GOPer in the House - November 8th, 2008
- Textbook Case - November 3rd, 2008
- Kagen's Legislative Accomplishments - November 3rd, 2008
- That's not a good thing - November 3rd, 2008
Posted in Ministry of Strategery |
January 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Dan, seriously this is quality piece of work. You really worked hard for your readers. People would pay to get this.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Excellent Dan. Thank you for the summaries. Very helpful for voters.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Dan: A good idea. However, to give us (voters) a solid basis about who to vote for, how about doing the same thing for Butler’s opponents????
I rarely vote for a candidate just because he or she is a member of one political party or the other!
Before I cast my vote or spend time, effort and money promoting any candidate, I need to know what kind of person he/she really is. And what their political philosophy and public record tells us about their competence and character.
January 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Decent analysis, but you interpreted a couple of the rulings wrong or missed some of the info. Also, I would suggest using sources other than Charlie Sykes and that Wall Street Journal article that is very dated.
January 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Richard - Thanks for the comment. Frankly, Butler’s opponent, Judge Mike Gableman, does not have an extensive record to review. As a circuit court judge, he does not have a published set of opinions. We’ll have to wait to hear his public statements - and to that end, let me suggest you come to Marquette Law School tomorrow to hear his interview with Mike Gousha. Otherwise, I’ll be sure to link the podcast off GOP3 when it’s up.
John - If you have any particular case you’d like to discuss in the comments, I would welcome your analysis. On the whole, I think its quite accurate. Three thoughts as to my sources - First, I only quoted Mr. Sykes and the WSJ once each; second, the parts of their commentary that I quoted are timeless, in that they critique the Court’s reasoning; third, I will soon be publishing another Research Briefing collecting quotes from these sources and many others evaluating the Court’s last three terms. However, the bulk of the commentary is from 2005 because that’s when Thomas and Ferdon came down. Moreover, voters need to be reminded of the significant criticism of the Court’s decisions that came in the wake of their release.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Daniel, are you preparing these out of the goodness of your heart and a desire to write? What inspiration led you to this?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Dan- I agree, but you seem to have relied on criticism from people with an agenda without keeping that agenda in perspective.
I have not had time to put something together on a couple of the cases were you missed the mark. In particular with the Anderson case, it dealt with DNA evidence (seamen and hair) from the crime scene that were not tested and ended up coming from someone else. Certainly grounds to retry the case.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
John Foust - actually, yes, I did these out of the goodness of my heart and my deep concern for the future of the Court and this great State. Over my winter break I read about opinions by Butler, selected these 22 as substantive examples where there was a divergence on the Court, and summarized them for this site’s readers. I was not asked to do so by anyone; I just did it. Moreover, I had so much fun doing so, that you can expect another one of these Research Briefings next Monday.
John - I think you are placing disproportionate emphasis on the very small number of times that I cited work by folks not on the Court. This paper is my analysis and that of the dissenters; there will be another paper collecting critiques by other analysts. Moreover, Charlie Sykes is hardly the only person to label the theory in Thomas “unprecedented and radical.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story the following morning labeled the ruling “unprecedented.” Donald Gifford, former dean of the University of Maryland Law School, also labeled it “radical.” — I will take another look at the Anderson case this evening.
January 14th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hey Foust,
It’s pretty shocking isn’t it? That hard work and research business? Maybe your side could engage in thoughtful research once in a while instead of relying on smear tactics and lies to advance leftist ideas (socialism, fascism, etc).
But yeah, just like the pro-troops Youtube video Henak posted eons ago, there just has to be a conspiracy, it’s the only explanation for people like you.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Daniel -
I haven’t been able to open the PDF on my laptop here at home, but I look forward to reading your analysis tomorrow on a different computer, as I’ll be voting absentee in Wisconsin.
It is interesting to see the various dismissive comments coming in - they don’t counter your work with any substantive arguments or factual references.
Brad V
January 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Brad- Did you read my comments? I praised him for his work, said he missed the boat (in nice way) on a couple of these very complicated cases, and even gave an example.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
John - I have reviewed the Anderson case and stick by my original critique. Yes, the new DNA testing showed that the seamen and hair was not his. However, the trial court that heard the case determined that the new evidence would not have changed the result, saying there was still plenty of other evidence of his guilt, including two eye wtinesses. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge.
While the 4-member WI SC majority reversed, they did so applying the real controversy rule rather than resorting to the new evidence rule. Justices Roggensack, Wilcox, and Prosser dissented. J. Roggensack’s opinion is a careful review of the facts and a more appropriate application of the law.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
[...] with are generally people I agree with. Moreover, he is running against an incumbent justice who I believe is a liberal judicial [...]
January 16th, 2008 at 1:14 am
[...] this afternoon. Our servers were unable to handle the huge influx of traffic yesterday downloading Daniel’s brief on Justice Butler and the response I got to my post on the 4 Sure Signs of a Fred Thompson Surge after it was linked [...]
January 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Brian, when your research finds some examples of me promoting socialism, fascism or zoophilia, please post.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
[...] hope of its author that it begins now—in earnest.” Barely daring to even intimate that my blog post may rise anywhere near to the level of his white paper, I do think the words adequately express my [...]
January 20th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
[...] can find this second memorandum on the Wisconsin Supreme Court as a Microsoft Word document, Extended and Exported, or [...]
January 28th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
[...] our series of research briefings on the last three terms of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (one, two), we turn today to criticism of the Court from scholars, pundits, and analysts. You can [...]
January 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[...] gets drawn can profoundly affect the tools available to law enforcement, as we’ve documented elsewhere. This, then, is where the Justice’s judicial philosophy really matters, and where his [...]