Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Justice Sykes Bitch-Slaps Shirley the Dictator-Wannabe

Charlie wasn't just a-kiddin' when he hinted at bombs and stuff. Justice Diane Sykes gave a speech this afternoon which is GOING to be controversial. Of course, the headline above is not quite accurate, but would YOU read a post entitled "Federal Jurist Discusses Recent Wisconsin Decisions at Legal Conference?"

Right.

So here's Indictment One, in regards the malpractice-caps case:

The Court's responsibility of Judicial Review is NOT a warrant to displace legislative judgments....Ferdon represents a major departure from long-accepted Constitutional principles that operate to maintain the balance of power between Legislative and Judicial branches.

This is not exactly "nuanced" language. This is more like "Hey, jerks!! Don'cha Know Your Place?"

Indictment Two, about the lead-paint case:

This, then, is a form of collective tort liability untethered to any actual responsibility for the specific harm asserted, imposed by the judiciary...(then citing Wilcox' dissent:) "...defendants can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the...injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred over 100 years ago, when some of the defendants were not in business."

The Court, under Snarlin'Shirley, has declared open season on anybody who may or may not have done anything which may or may not have actually hurt somebody. If you think that's just too abstruse, think "Slavery Reparations..."

There's more: "If...the Court extends [this] to other industries, the case will have substantial implications for the stability and predictability of our liability system, AND THE STABILITY OF OUR STATE'S ECONOMY, AS WELL."

Yeah. Ask Mautz Paint. Oh--no--I forgot. They went out of business before this decision was actually rendered. Couldn't afford the defense any longer.

Indictment Three, regarding the Supremes' finding of a New Right in the Wisconsin Constitution:

The Court's decision rests not on the language or history of the State Constitution's self-incrimination clause but on the Court's own policy judgment flowing from an expansive view of the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule. (In this case, Justice Crooks joined the wackos-in-majority to "continue the Warren Court's "Rights Revolution.")

How very precious of Shirley and Patrick. In Wisconsin, criminals will have MORE rights than they do in most other States, and in Federal courts. Once again, the Supremes, drinking flagons of Self-Important Vitamin Mix, have placed themselves above the legitimate policymakers in the Legislature.

Indictment Four (more rights for criminals) involves "showups," a method of eliciting identification of perps from eyewitnesses:

The [Court] holds that the Due Process clause of the Wisconsin Constitution "necessitates" this new approach to eyewitness identification, but makes no effort to explain why. [Since the Court has arrogated the power of New Federalism to itself,] ...the existence of the power justifies its exercise.

The three Justices which still possessed the power to reason said (in dissent) that the Court's decision was based on "social science studies" produced by 'advocacy groups,' and that if every time a new "study" came out the law would change, it would make the Constitution useless.

They are right, of course.

Indictment Five, regarding the Court's imposition of rules requiring police to electronically record such interrogations in the cases of juveniles:

The majority articulated several policy justifications for the new rule...[which] are uncontroversial as matters of policy; that the Court resorted to its supervisory power for the authority to impose the new rule was extraordinary and unprecedented...in essence, to permit the Court to reach beyond its supervision of the Court system to regulate the practices and procedures of another Branch of Government....by this interpretation, the Court's superintending power is almost limitless.

"Shirley's Court" is having its very own Coronation Party.

Perhaps a few pitchforks should materialize outside the doors of the Supreme Court/Wisconsin, to remind these powermad jackasses just exactly WHO they are attempting to govern.

1 comment:

Peter said...

Those leftist elitists just hate us peasants with the pitchforks. I added a link to your commentary to mine.