DOCSLIB.ORG

Butler Targeted by Conservatives but Toppling a Sitting Justice Isn’T Easy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Butler Targeted by Conservatives but Toppling a Sitting Justice Isn’T Easy BUTLER TARGETED BY CONSERVATIVES BUT TOPPLING A SITTING JUSTICE ISN’T EASY JEFF MAYERS ollowing an The court lined expensive and up like this in late F July: nasty race for Supreme Court in Liberal-leaning: 2007 that set a total spending record of • Chief Justice $5.8 million, insiders Shirley Abrahamson, already are bracing for first appointed to the an even more expen- Supreme Court in sive and more nasty August 1976 and race next year. And became chief justice operatives on both in August 1996. Next sides are already up for reelection, doing the opposition 2009. research and mapping • Ann Walsh the battle plans that Bradley, elected to are likely to make this the court in 1995 and officially non-partisan reelected in 2005 race for the high court without opposition. perhaps the most par- tisan ever. • Louis Butler, appointed by Doyle in August 2004 to replace Diane Sykes, a lead- That’s because Democratic Governor Jim ing court conservative who was appointed Doyle’s history-setting pick for the Supreme by the Bush administration to the 7th Court—Milwaukee African-American Louis Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Butler—will be going for a full 10-year term on the state’s highest court. If he wins, liberals Swing vote: will continue to hold the edge on Wisconsin’s • N. Patrick Crooks. Elected to Supreme 7-member top court—furthering the power of Court in 1996 with help of Republicans, Doyle and Democrats entering a November and reelected in 2006 without opposition 2008 election, which at this writing in July 2007 after joining liberal-leaners on two contro- holds little hope for many Republicans. versial liability cases. If Butler loses, conservatives would have Conservative-leaning: the philosophical edge on the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts, ensuring protection for • David Prosser, former GOP Assembly school choice and providing a boost to business speaker appointed to Supreme Court in interests at a time when the conservative’s polit- Jeff Mayers is president of WisPolitics Publishing, which ical climate appears to be eroding elsewhere. runs WisPolitics.com, IowaPolitics.com, WisBusiness.com, and WisOpinion.com. Wisconsin Interest 21 September 1998, and elected to a full 10- that spent an estimated $3.1 million mostly year term in 2001 without opposition. on Ziegler’s side, were seen as pivotal in the 2007 race and perhaps even more piv- • Patience Roggensack, elected to the court otal in 2008 because the contestants next in 2003. year likely won’t have the personal wealth • Annette Ziegler, elected spring 2007 to that Ziegler and Clifford had to pump into replace conservative Jon Wilcox. Officially electioneering (their campaigns, with the took office August 1. help of that personal money, spent a com- bined $2.7 million, more than doubling the If Butler wins, Abrahamson continues old mark). Some operatives estimate leading what many think is an operating spending for the 2008 race, all told, could majority with Crooks. Butler loses, and conser- reach $8 million, surpassing the estimated vatives would seem to have a solid four-justice total of $5.8 million spent on the Ziegler- majority. Clifford affair. The stakes are very high. Bye-bye, it seems, to the sleepy, mostly How else to you explain all the pre-elec- genteel court races of the past. In bygone days, tion year activity—even before the swearing- candidates and campaigns didn't get rolling in on August 1 of Wisconsin’s latest justice? until December before the February primary, Ziegler, the Washington County judge who and once they did get rolling stuck mostly to was politically wounded by conflict-of-interest resume campaigns, Rotary Club speeches, bar charges in her spring election victory over association dinners and newspaper editorial Madison attorney Linda Clifford, was added board visits. In fact, some recent incumbents to the court in place of conservative Wilcox didn't even have an opponent when they won even though the outcome of a secretive Judicial their 10-year term (Bradley, Prosser, Crooks). Commission investigation was unlikely to be Like it or not, some observers say, high announced before her official swearing-in. stakes, highly negative, general election-like Even months before, activists were busy. court races are probably here to stay in Wisconsin. Critics say special interests are buy- • Democrats were busy organizing Butler’s ing elections. Others say added attention to campaign and raising money. Butler’s these races is good in that more and more citi- campaign through June 30 raised more zens are becoming aware of the importance of than $175,000 and had more than $155,000 the job and that they have the power to elect cash on hand. top judges. • Republicans were busy trying to find an What’s happening in Wisconsin is a opponent. As of late July they hadn't national trend. found a willing circuit judge yet, though the name of former Waukesha County A group called the Justice at Stake District Attorney Paul Bucher, who unsuc- Campaign bemoans special interest influence cessfully ran for attorney general in 2006, on court races. A report issued earlier this year kept popping up. If Bucher ended up in by the group and its partners (the Brennan the race, Democrats would have the Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and advantage of borrowing Republicans‚ suc- the National Institute for Money in State cessful “the-best-candidate-for-the-high- Politics) concluded this special interest pres- court-is-a-judge” campaign that in many sure is growing into a “permanent national ways doomed Clifford. threat to the fairness and impartiality of America’s courts.” • And operatives were mapping plans for special interest-funded “independent” “Justice at Stake’s report shows how in too campaigns. Those independent campaigns many states, judicial elections are becoming 22 Fall 2007 political prizefights where partisans and spe- damage payments. Campaign finance cial interests seek to install judges who will analysis showed business gave $2 for answer to them instead of the law and the con- every $1 donated by lawyers directly to stitution,” said former U.S. Supreme Court candidates. Donors from the business com- Justice Sandra Day O‚Connor. “I hope that munity gave $15.3 million to high court every state that elects judges in partisan elec- candidates—more than twice the $7.4 mil- tions will consider reforms.” lion given by attorneys. Among the key findings of the report on • Third-party interest groups pumped at 2006 races were: least $8.5 million more into independent expenditure campaigns to support or • Of the 10 states that had entirely privately- oppose their candidates. About $2.7 mil- financed contested Supreme Court cam- lion of that was spent in Washington state paigns in 2006, five set fundraising alone. records. Candidates in Alabama combined to raise $13.4 million, overtaking the previ- But interestingly, the report also found ous state record by more than a million that money and TV ads don’t always buy the dollars. expected results: • Median fundraising • The candidate with by candidates for the most on-air support state high courts hit a won 67 percent of the record high of time, a modest drop from $243,910. Five states 85 percent in 2004. set aggregate candi- Money and TV ads • And, in 2006, the can- date fundraising didate raising more records for high-court don’t always buy the money won 68 percent of campaigns— expected results. the time, down from 85 Alabama, Kentucky, percent in 2004. Georgia, Oregon, and Washington. National court-watch- Wisconsin’s Ziegler- ers say a major mover in Clifford race wasn’t this arena is the U.S. included in the study Chamber of Commerce, of 2006 races. with ties to the state’s big business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers & • TV ads in 2006 high court campaigns ran Commerce (WMC). in 10 of 11 states with contested elections, compared to four of 18 states in 2000. According to Governing magazine, in 2006 the Chamber, which represents the interests of • Average television spending per state was more than 3 million businesses across the coun- $1.6 million, a new record. An overwhelm- try, reportedly spent $120 million in the preced- ing majority of independent expenditure ing four years, most of it through the Institute television advertising was sponsored by for Legal Reform, a tax-free affiliate. Governing groups on the political right. In 2006, pro- said that in 2004, the Chamber won every sin- business groups accounted for 90 percent gle contest in which it was involved. Figures of all independent spending on TV ads in for 2006 weren’t available, but the Chamber can high court races, the report said. claim a piece of the Ziegler trophy. • State Supreme Court elections attracted The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal record sums from business interests, what Reform (ILR) calls itself a national campaign, the report called a reflection of the impor- representing the nation's business community, tance of state courts in setting corporate Wisconsin Interest 23 “with the critical mission of making America's sidered a smart pre-reelection pick when he legal system simpler, fairer and faster for chose Butler. everyone.” It was founded by the U.S. And then earlier this year, Republicans Chamber of Commerce in 1998 to address what and business groups got heavily involved in it calls the “country's litigation explosion.” the race for the Wilcox seat. That national trend exhibited itself in Early targeted voter contact and positive Wisconsin earlier this year, and court-watchers advertising helped Ziegler to an impressive predict a more robust exhibition next year— primary showing, dispatching a third minor especially given a U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iron County Heads to Polls Today
    Mostly cloudy High: 49 | Low: 32 | Details, page 2 DAILY GLOBE yourdailyglobe.com Tuesday, April 4, 2017 75 cents Iron County TURKEY STRUT heads to polls today By RICHARD JENKINS sor, three candidates — incum- [email protected] bent Jeff Stenberg, Tom Thomp- HURLEY — Iron County vot- son Jr. and James Schmidt — ers head to the polls today in a will be vying for two town super- series of state and local races. visor seats. Mercer Clerk Chris- At the state level, voters will tan Brandt and Treasurer Lin decide between incumbent Tony Miller are running unopposed. Evers and Lowell Holtz to see There is also a seat open on who will be the state’s next the Mercer Sanitary Board, how- superintendent of public instruc- ever no one has filed papers to tion. Annette Ziegler is running appear on the ballot. unopposed for another term as a The city of Montreal also has justice on the Wisconsin two seats up for election. In Supreme Court. Ward 1, Joan Levra is running Iron County Circuit Court unopposed to replace Brian Liv- Judge Patrick Madden is also ingston on the council, while running unopposed for another Leola Maslanka is being chal- term on the bench. lenged by Bill Stutz for her seat Iron County’s local municipal- representing Ward 2. ities also have races on the ballot The other town races, all of — including contested races in which feature unopposed candi- Kimball, Mercer and Montreal. dates, are as follows: In Kimball, Town Chairman —Anderson: Edward Brandis Ron Ahonen is being challenged is running for chairman, while by Joe Simonich.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. - 1iIt" ..' i· ! 1",,1 ------------...-, ------------------'-""-- - SURVEY OF JUDICIAL SALARIES IN STATE COURT SYSTEM~ A Publication of the National Center for State Courts 1660 Lincoln Street-Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80203 April 1977 Volume 3 Number 4 Volume 3 will extend through calendar year 1977. ,; ------------------------------------------------------------------~-~------------------------- CONTENTS Page Fore\':(;rd .................................................... v Board of Directors ............................................ vi Rank Order of Judicial Salaries, Population, and Per Capita Income in the Fifty States ........................ Judicial Salaries In Appellate and Trial Courts ..................... 3 Key to Abbreviations. 5 Salaries -- Courts of Appellate and General Jurisdictions and State Court Administrators .................................. 6 Salarit's - Courts of Special or Limited Jurisdiction. .. 12 Apr'l'ndix I -- Future Salaries and Pending Legislation .............. 20 Copyright 1977 Apppndix II - Floating Salary Statutes ............................ 24 Nationdl ("pnler for Stalt' Courh Council of State Court Representatives ............................ 26 This publication is supported by Grant Number 77-DF-99-0021, awarded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. LEAA bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained herein. ii iii National Center for State Courts
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • National Association of Women Judges Counterbalance Spring 2012 Volume 31 Issue 3
    national association of women judges counterbalance Spring 2012 Volume 31 Issue 3 INSIDE THIS ISSUE Poverty’s Impact on the Administration of Justice / 1 President’s Message / 2 Executive Director’s Message / 3 Cambridge 2012 Midyear Meeting and Leadership Conference / 6 MEET ME IN MIAMI: NAWJ 2012 Annual Conference / 8 District News / 10 Immigration Programs News / 20 Membership Moments / 20 Women in Prison Report / 21 Louisiana Women in Prison / 21 Maryland Women in Prison / 23 NAWJ District 14 Director Judge Diana Becton and Contra Costa County native Christopher Darden with local high school youth New York Women in Prison / 24 participants in their November, 2011 Color of Justice program. Read more on their program in District 14 News. Learn about Color of Justice in creator Judge Brenda Loftin’s account on page 33. Educating the Courts and Others About Sexual Violence in Unexpected Areas / 28 NAWJ Judicial Selection Committee Supports Gender Equity in Selection of Judges / 29 POVERTY’S IMPACT ON THE ADMINISTRATION Newark Conference Perspective / 30 OF JUSTICE 1 Ten Years of the Color of Justice / 33 By the Honorable Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and Ashley Thomas Jeffrey Groton Remembered / 34 “The opposite of poverty is justice.”2 These words have stayed with me since I first heard them Program Spotlight: MentorJet / 35 during journalist Bill Moyers’ interview with civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson. In observance News from the ABA: Addressing Language of the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, they were discussing what Dr. Access / 38 King would think of the United States today in the fight against inequality and injustice.
    [Show full text]
  • Annette Ziegler Disciplinary Proceedings
    No. 2007AP2066-J STATE OF WISCONSIN IN THE SUPREME COURT _____________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST: THE HONORABLE ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER. WISCONSIN JUDICIAL COMMISSION, Complainant, v. THE HONORABLE ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER, Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ JUDICIAL CONDUCT PANEL’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS RALPH ADAM FINE Presiding Judge, Judicial Conduct Panel CHARLES P. DYKMAN Judge, Judicial Conduct Panel TED E. WEDEMEYER, JR. Judge, Judicial Conduct Panel Introduction As required by WIS. STAT. § 757.89, this Judicial Conduct Panel respectfully submits its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations in this matter to the supreme court for its review and determination under WIS. 1 STAT. § 757.91. Background On September 6, 2007, the Judicial Commission filed with the supreme court a complaint against the Honorable Annette K. Ziegler, asserting that it had “found probable cause to believe that Judge Ziegler has violated a rule in SCR Chapter 60, Code of Judicial Conduct.” The Judicial Commission is an agency created by WIS. STAT. § 757.83. The Commission is charged with the responsibility of investigating allegations of judicial misconduct by members of the Wisconsin judiciary. See WIS. STAT. § 757.85(1)(a) (“The commission shall investigate any possible misconduct or permanent disability of a judge or circuit or supplemental court commissioner. Misconduct constitutes cause under article VII, section 11, of the constitution.”). Article VII, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: 1 As material, WIS. STAT. § 757.89 provides that “the panel shall make findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct or appropriate action for permanent disability and file the findings, conclusions and recommendations with the supreme court.” As material, WIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin Judicial Elections Updated 02/23/04
    Wisconsin Judicial Elections Updated 02/23/04 1. Two candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme court, Diane Sykes and Louis Butler, pledged to run positive campaigns. Based on her reading of the judicial code of ethics, Sykes has declared that she will not comment on pending cases or legal issues that might come before the court in the future. Sykes stated that recent races for the state high court have become similar to legislative races, with candidates taking positions on legal issues. She added, “I will not discuss cases or legal issues, period.” Doing so, she said, “risks compromising the integrity, the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary.” Butler agreed with Sykes, but said a candidate’s record, qualifications, even personal opinions are all fair game. Richard P. Jones, Sykes, Butler Vow Positive Campaigns for High Court, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 4, 2000. 2. Columnist argues that Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Louis Butler “is far more qualified to sit on the state’s high court bench than the appointed justice he is challenging, conservative judicial activist Diane Sykes.” The piece argues, however, that Butler should refrain from criticizing Sykes’ ex-husband, Milwaukee radio talk show host Charlie Sykes. Butler recently suggested that Diane Sykes should publicly repudiate her ex-husband’s on-air comments about the judicial race. The columnist states, “It’s silly to suggest that Diane Sykes is responsible for what her ex-husband says. And it is equally silly to suggest that Charlie Sykes is pushing Diane’s candidacy any more aggressively than he has those of past conservative candidates for the court.” John Nichols, Charlie Sykes Upfront About Right-Wing Bent, Wis.
    [Show full text]
  • Famous Cases of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
    In Re: Booth 3 Wis. 1 (1854) What has become known as the Booth case is actually a series of decisions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court beginning in 1854 and one from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 514 (1859), leading to a final published decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth, 11 Wis. 501 (1859). These decisions reflect Wisconsin’s attempted nullification of the federal fugitive slave law, the expansion of the state’s rights movement and Wisconsin’s defiance of federal judicial authority. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Booth unanimously declared the Fugitive Slave Act (which required northern states to return runaway slaves to their masters) unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned that decision but the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to file the U.S. Court’s mandate upholding the fugitive slave law. That mandate has never been filed. When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, slavery existed in this country. Article IV, Section 2 provided as follows: No person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. Based on this provision, Congress in 1793 passed a law that permitted the owner of any runaway slave to arrest him, take him before a judge of either the federal or state courts and prove by oral testimony or by affidavit that the person arrested owed service to the claimant under the laws of the state from which he had escaped; if the judge found the evidence to be sufficient, the slave owner could bring the fugitive back to the state from which he had escaped.
    [Show full text]
  • 20180810134844495 17-1584 Brief in Opposition.Pdf
    No. 17-1584 In the Supreme Court of the United States DANIEL J. H. BARTELT, PETITIONER, v. WISCONSIN ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN BRIEF IN OPPOSITION BRAD D. SCHIMEL MISHA TSEYTLIN Attorney General Solicitor General Counsel of Record State of Wisconsin Department of Justice AMY C. MILLER 17 West Main Street Assistant Solicitor Madison, WI 53703 General [email protected] (608) 267-9323 Attorneys for the State of Wisconsin QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a suspect automatically places himself into “custody” under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), by confessing. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............................................................3 STATEMENT ..............................................................3 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION.......... 11 I. The Vast Majority Of Courts To Have Addressed The Question Presented Agree With The Wisconsin Supreme Court That A Suspect Does Not Automatically Place Himself Into Custody By Confessing ............. 11 II. The Wisconsin Supreme Court Correctly Determined That Petitioner Did Not Place Himself Into Custody By Confessing ............. 17 III. This Case Is A Poor Vehicle For Addressing The Question Presented ................................. 24 CONCLUSION ..........................................................26 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988) ............................................. 18 Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) ...................................... passim Connecticut v. Edwards, 11 A.3d 116 (Conn. 2011) ................................... 12 Connecticut v. Lapointe, 678 A.2d 942 (Conn. 1996) ........................... 11, 12 Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) ....................................... 18, 25 Dowthitt v. Texas, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Ct.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 April Montana Lawyer
    April 2010 THE MONTANA Volume 35, No. 6 awyerTHE STATE BAR OF MONTANA SpecialL issue on Montana courts Tweeting Supreme Court docket is now a major viewable to all on the web trial Developments in the 2 biggest UM’s discipline cases student The trouble Grace Case with money in Project changes judicial elections the landscape for media coverage Chopping down the backlog Changes in procedures at the Supreme Court cuts the deficit Ethics opinion on the new in the caseload notary rule THE MONTANA LAWYER APRIL INDEX Published every month except January and July by the State Bar of Montana, 7 W. Sixth Ave., Suite 2B, P.O. Box 577, Helena MT 59624. Phone (406) 442-7660; Fax (406) 442-7763. Cover Story E-mail: [email protected] UM’s Grace Case Project: trial coverage via Internet 6 STATE BAR OFFICERS President Cynthia K. Smith, Missoula President-Elect Features Joseph Sullivan, Great Falls Secretary-Treasurer Ethics Opinion: notary-rule compliance 12 K. Paul Stahl, Helena Immediate Past President Money floods campaigns for judgeships 22 Chris Tweeten, Helena Chair of the Board Shane Vannatta, Missoula Commentary Board of Trustees Pam Bailey, Billings President’s Message: Unsung heroes 4 Pamela Bucy, Helena Darcy Crum, Great Falls Op-Ed: A nation of do-it-yourself lawyers 25 Vicki W. Dunaway, Billings Jason Holden, Great Falls Thomas Keegan, Helena Jane Mersen, Bozeman State Bar News Olivia Norlin, Glendive Mark D. Parker, Billings Ryan Rusche, Wolf Point Lawyers needed to aid military personnel 14 Ann Shea, Butte Randall Snyder, Bigfork Local attorneys and Law Day events 15 Bruce Spencer, Helena Matthew Thiel, Missoula State Bar Calendar 15 Shane Vannatta, Missoula Lynda White, Bozeman Tammy Wyatt-Shaw, Missoula Courts ABA Delegate Damon L.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman
    Marquette Law Review Volume 91 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 2007 Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman Shelley Fite Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Lynn Adelman and Shelley Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol91/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 91 Winter 2007 Number 2 EXERCISING JUDICIAL POWER: A RESPONSE TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT'S CRITICS THE HONORABLE LYNN ADELMAN* SHELLEY FITE** I. INTRODUCTION In recent years, legal conservatives in Wisconsin have strongly criticized the performance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A former member of the court, Diane Sykes, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, warned that the court had undergone a "dramatic shift," "depart[ed] from ... familiar and long- accepted" constraints on its power, and failed to exercise its power judiciously.' She called on Wisconsin lawyers to "sit up and take notice.",2 Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael B. Brennan echoed Judge Sykes's criticisms, stating that the court's actions raised concerns "about the proper exercise of judicial authority under the state's constitution and laws." 3 And Milwaukee lawyer Rick Esenberg published a paper under the aegis of the Federalist Society, quoting former congressman Dick Armey for the proposition that the court had * Lynn Adelman is a United States District Judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and a former Wisconsin legislator.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Table of Pending Cases
    July 15, 2021 WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT TABLE OF PENDING CASES Clerk of Supreme Court Telephone: (608) 266-1880 Facsimile: (608) 267-0640 Web Site: www.wicourts.gov Wisconsin Supreme Court Case Access: http://wscca.wicourts.gov The following table describes pending cases the Supreme Court has accepted on petition for review, bypass, certification and original jurisdiction. The cases included for the first time (that is, the most recently accepted cases) are marked with an * next to the case number. After the Supreme Court decides a case, the date of oral argument or date of submission on briefs is replaced with the date of the Supreme Court decision and abbreviated mandate. That mandate will generally be listed in the table for two months and then the case will be removed from the table. The information in the table, from left to right, is as follows: the case number; an abbreviated caption of the case (case name); a statement of the issue(s); the date the Supreme Court accepted the case; the method by which the case came to the Supreme Court: REVW = Petition for review, CERT = Certification, CERQ = Certified Question, BYPA = Petition to bypass, ORIG = Original Action, WRIT = Petition for supervisory writ, REMD = Remanded from the U.S. Supreme Court; the date of oral argument or submission on briefs; or the date of the Supreme Court decision and an abbreviated mandate; the Court of Appeals district from which the case came, if applicable; the county; the date of the Court of Appeals decision, if applicable; whether the Court of Appeals decision is published or unpublished, and, if it is published, the citations to the public domain citation and the official reports for the Court of Appeals decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    2021 WI 24 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2018AP2357-LV COMPLETE TITLE: In the matter of the commitment of: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Anthony James Jendusa, Respondent-Respondent. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED: March 10, 2021 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: October 26, 2020 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: Circuit COUNTY: Milwaukee JUDGE: Joseph R. Wall JUSTICES: DALLET, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. ZIEGLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: For the petitioner-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Lisa E.F. Kumfer, assistant attorney general; with whom on the briefs was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Lisa E.F. Kumfer. For the respondent-respondent, there was a brief filed by Dustin C. Haskell assistant state public defender. There was an oral argument by Dustin C. Haskell. 2021 WI 24 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2018AP2357-LV (L.C. No. 2016CI5) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the matter of the commitment of: State of Wisconsin, FILED Petitioner-Petitioner, MAR 10, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Anthony James Jendusa, Respondent-Respondent. DALLET, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. ZIEGLER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROGGENSACK, C.J., and REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined.
    [Show full text]