There has been extensive commentary on this blog and several others (IT, MP, RE) about the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which is a very good thing. This is an important race and the legal community and entire Wisconsin citizenry should be considering the proper role of the Court in our government.
It has been pointed out that I refer to Prof. Esenberg’s White Paper for the Federalist Society as “the definitive work” on the Court’s recent terms. I think this is true, in part, because it engages more cases in more detail than any other analysis of the Court.
So my challenge to you, dear liberal friends, is simple: Get your own damn white paper. If you are sick of Esenberg’s getting cited all the time, then step up to the plate people.
Between OWN‘s Institute for One Wisconsin, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, the Center for Wisconsin Strategy, the Roosevelt Institution, UWM’s CUIR, the UW Law Institute for Legal Studies, Senator Feingold’s PPF, or the American Constitution Society, someone should be able to find $3,000 to hire a scholar to write a white paper defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence. Such a white paper could offer a sustained defense of new federalism in the context of the Wisconsin Court’s decisions, or argue that the decisions were driven by precedent, or that judicial activism is good for liberty. I’ll even suggest possible authors – UWM’s Sara Benesh or Mordecai Lee, UW Law’s Susan Steingrass or Ann Althouse, or Marquette Law‘s Jason Czarnezki, David Papke, Peter Rofes, or Ed Fallone. Or how about Peg Lautenschlager and/or Daniel Bach?
So there’s my suggestion. Get $1000 for an honorarium, $1000 for printing and mailing, $1000 for a luncheon lecture. Convince one of the aforementioned, or someone else for that matter, to research and write the white paper in February for a mid-March launch. Note that this is not a “Support Butler” effort, but rather to educate the public about the entire Court’s recent jurisprudence. And that will make the public discussion of the topic that much better.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
Crickets……
But Daniel it so much easier for the liberals to piece together attempts to discredit you and Esenberg! It is way too much to expect them to compile a sustained defense.
Gee, Brandon… 5:22 to 5:29, that’s a lot of time to wait! Were you reading over Daniel’s shoulder while he wrote it?
Is this post some sort of admission that you were paid 30 pieces for this “white paper”?
You’re absolutely right, though. It always seems like it’s far easier for the right wingers to march in lockstep to crank out the coincidentally similar white papers, commercials that aren’t commercials, letters to the editor, or op-eds in the papers that “forget” to mention they’re the leaders of the local Federalists. The left wingers are far less on the ball when it comes to stuff like this. They don’t as easily agree with each other, they don’t get a woody from combing their hair the same way as the next guy, they seem more disorganized by comparison and they aren’t eager to suck up to well-funded patrons who might find ways to encourage/hire them to do things like your “white paper.”
Who knows, maybe the activist-liberal-Democrat justice’s supporters will depend on his record and accomplishments. Maybe they’ll just wait for y’all to try to defend Gableman’s CV. Where’s that “white paper”? He’s the best and the brightest y’all can offer up at this moment in history? Why so? What’s easier to write, the pro-our-guy paper or the anti-other-guy paper? Why shouldn’t I write-in Esenberg instead of voting for Gableman?
“coincidentally similar white papers”
Black helicopters out in force today! Must be the weather!
You have a blog or something, right? Maybe some year or another I’ll have to check that out.
Talk about delusions of grandeur. Besides, shouldn’t you be busy gathering support for that “consistently sides with criminals over law enforcement” business you find so truthful and compelling?
That’s what Plaisted’s latest was about. It wasn’t about how nice it is that Microsoft now lets us save Word documents as .pdf files, or how pleased you are with your own quote-mining exercises.
Brian, no tinfoil hat here. You seem to have missed my point about marching in lockstep. Yes, it’s perfectly possible that a sequence of “white papers”, op-eds, commercials, luncheons and who knows what else all happened without a direct chain of command. It’s also not unimaginable that large, well-funded lobbying groups with checkbook in hand can encourage a sequence of PR to make it look as though there’s a natural groundswell. That’s their job.
There’s no paper trail, so yes, some observers not within any side’s inner-circle will say “Gee, all these folks are saying almost exactly the same thing, they’re clearly socially connected, they’re clearly politically connected” and they’ll make the big jump to assume that some dark force coordinated it all. Usually the dark force will sit back and chuckle, saying they wish they had that much power and effect.
And let’s not forget that what Daniel’s post is really saying is that Butler’s supporters don’t yet seem to be capable of this sort of coordinated or coincidental groundswell.
Also, Daniel, State v. Knapp has been explained to you every which way from Sunday, doctrinally, factually, how it’s distinguished from what you claim should be controlling federal precedent, etc., 1,684 times.
Why in the world do you think you’re entitled to a 1,685th.
IT – Your response is what I would expect from someone who writes a blog self-titled “The Champagne of Hate Blogs”.
John – Daniel’s post is saying exactly what he wrote, liberals love to talk cheap shots, like the ones listed above, but lack the motivation or commitment to put together their own white paper.
This post and the angry response is a perfect example of why the leftosphere has been dubbed “nutroots”.
So, let me get this straight…you and your gang of WMC synchophants can go out and throw any kind of garbage into the air and never have to correct anything because we could go, look at the same record and publish our different conclusions. Well, it certainly takes you off the hook, doesn’t it? I mean, why bother trying to get the cites or anything right, if that’s the way it works?
Lawyers and law students (although I could imagine what you are getting at Marquette) get reviews of developments in the Supreme Court all the time — in classrooms and CLEs throughout the state. Except for interested parties like the Federalist Society, WMC, Young Republican meetings and, apparently, some Marquette law classes, no one sees the sky-is-falling nonsense that you and Esenberg are pushing (certainly, no one else is calling it “the Bulter era”). You can pick up any of these legitimate reviews and you will see the same usual ebb-and-flow of judiciaries all over the country.
No. The burden is not on us to come out with a glossy response to your “oppo” research. The burden on you is to defend the legitiamte challenges to your contentions and back it up. The law is not a hit-and-run proposition — it is a continuing dialog. If you want to wave your supposed legal scholarship around, even (especially) as a law student, you should be prepared to defend it, not hide behind Esenberg’s skirts or try to throw it back on us. When a judge asks you to defend your work and you say “ask them first”, you are going to get laughed out of court. And rightly so.
Oh, and, a little advice that I gave Esenberg: If you really are doing these hit-pieces for free, go get paid. WMC is not a damn charity. If you are like most law students, you need books and beer. They are spending millions. Don’t be a fool.
lol@angry
Y’all are a laugh a minute.
“synchophants” – Ouch. Angry but, no substance.
“kind of garbage” – Daniel worked very hard on these pieces, where do you come of calling them garbage?
“look at the same record and publish our different conclusion” – Yes, that’s exactly what civilized people do rather than engage in the type of enraged drive-by attacks you are executing with your comments.
“I mean, why bother trying to get the cites or anything right, if that’s the way it works” – You may disagree with Daniel but I saw no examples of incorrect citations.
“The law is not a hit-and-run proposition — it is a continuing dialog” – He did defend it, if you hadn’t noticed, in the response section. All he is asking is that you come back with a little more than angry, half-cocked remarks and put some real thought into it, like he did. That’s continuing dialog.
If “synchophant” isn’t a word yet, it should be. A rather good and useful neologism!
Brandon 7:59, your response is largely ad hominem. Why is that?
Brandon:
Sorry — I mispelled it, but the definition makes it even more apt than I thought: syc·o·phant (s?k’?-f?nt, s?’k?-) n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Drive-by attacks? What, I stopped the car. I’m still waiting to get served.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with his cites. The point is, what’s the point of trying to get anything right if it is up to others to clean up the mess.
Suhr isn’t defending anything. He is practicing the wing-nut tactic of refusing to engage. He lets Esenberg fight his battles for him. His answer is “write your own white paper”. That’s a cop-out.
sync·o·phant (s?nk’?-f?nt, s?’k?-) n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering and emulating influential people in lockstep with other syncophants…
We are all waiting for you to correct your previous “white paper” before moving on.
Mike-
He did engage in a far deeper manner of discussion than you did. I use drive-by as a way of the describing the manner in which you just leave comments or personal attacks rather than responding with a well-reasoned paper the way Daniel did.
Like I said, I give very little credence to a gang lead by IT who posts from the “Champagne of Hate Blogs” and touts his “Anti-Christian Bigotry” bona fides on his sidebar.
They’re not a gang, they’re a club. Brandon, you’re repeating yourself. You used the “Hate Blogs” line on 2/6 at 7:59. Was that a drive-by or a well-reasoned response? You do see that many blogs use their most ridiculous criticisms as a badge of honor, right? Some have sidebars of full of praise, some like to be a bit more even-handed, if only for humor’s sake.
Is anyone going to answer whether Daniel was paid by anyone to produce his “white paper”? Does the free market say that his paper was worth $3,000?
“whether Daniel was paid by anyone to produce his “white paper”?”
More black helicoptors! Foust, I bet you have a lot of soup cans and bottled water stocked up in your basement in case the Apocalypse comes soon, don’t you? Not everything is a conspiracy.
I think it’s a legit question. All it needs is a yes or a no. Again, no copters necessary. I hadn’t even imagined the possibility that he’d been paid, but it is the suggestion that Daniel makes in this post, isn’t it? Why is he telling the opposition to hire someone?
Sounds like more black helicoptors, Foust!
Duck or the blades will cut your hair!
I love the use of the “black helicopters” line as a means of avoiding answering the question directly. Is that really the best the Marquette Law School has to offer?
I don’t know, I haven’t applied yet!
Ignoramous.
Sorry, conspiracy theories are not a part of the cannons of logic. It would be best for Foust and other liberals to stick to reason instead of trying to see a shooter in every grassy knoll.
Brian, you should tell your compatriot to publish an updated “white paper”, where the errors are corrected.
Ignoramus?
My, that Marquette education sure has paid dividends!
It’s no wonder you folks here at GOP3 are getting ripped apart on a daily basis, what with your arguments based on juvenile name calling and “black helicopters.”
Um, actually it’s liberals who are basing their arguments on conspiracy theories. Are you actually reading the comments on this thread?
Sorry I’ve been away – I’m out in Washington, D.C. at the Conservative Political Action Conference and thus subjected to sporadic email access.
No. I was never paid for any of my blogging or memos. No, I was not told by Prof. Esenberg, WMC, or the Federalist Society or anybody else to write those papers, they were entirely my idea and initiative.
As for defending my work, I feel comfortable with the responses I’ve given in the comments to my posts and those of IT and MP. At a certain point, we are simply and directly going to disagree about how to characterize certain cases, and further comments in a long chain back and forth are simply unproductive.
Thank you, Daniel. Brian was doing his best to defend your honor while you were gone.
Come on Brian, even Eisenberg has said you were wrong on Anderson.
[...] Suhr, who blogs right here on Gop3.com even mentioned Mordecai Lee as someone who might write a liberal legal whitepaper on the supreme [...]