Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Judge-ette Can't Spell "Separation of Powers"

The Madistan re-election campaign of Judge-Ette Sumi is in full swing.

For the second time in less than two weeks, a Dane County judge Tuesday issued an order blocking the implementation of Gov. Scott Walker's plan to curb collective bargaining for public workers.

...She warned that those who violate her order could face court sanctions.

Yadayadayada

Meantime, in the real world, the AG had a pertinent comment:

"We don't believe that the court can enjoin non-parties. Whether the Department of Administration or other state officers choose to comply with any direction issued by Judge Sumi is up to them."

A Marquette lawprof says he thinks that the Judge-Ette is unhappy with the State for implementing a law duly passed, signed, and published--just like the State law requires.

No kidding. On TV she looked like she was in serious need--waaaaayyyyy overdue serious need--of a good old-fashioned enema.

More than that, she needs a dictionary in which to look up "Separation of Powers."

ADDENDUM: And now for a word from someone with whom I FREQUENTLY disagree, Recess:

A court - any court - deciding that it has the power of administrative review over the working processes of its co-equal partners is a very dangerous step that effectively elevates the judiciary above the other two branches of government.

I'll go with prunes instead of the enema--same cause, though. The Judge-Ette's widdlebiddy ego was smacked, appropriately.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you need a primer in constitutional law.

illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/03/wisconsin-ozanne-v-fitzgerald-preview.html



And now, for Dad29's next trick--He makes this statement in a previous blog--"The lack of civility from the (D) Party and its sheep stems from the fact that they are irrational."

Then you say that the judge in this case requires "good old-fashioned enema."

Stay classy!


One more point--You tell everyone elections have consequences. Well, so do judicial rulings. You're side lost--perhaps temporarily--so deal with it.

Dad29 said...

I'll take ConLaw from someone who practices law--like Esenberg or Althouse. Thanks.

I'm much more classy than the Judge-Ette, who can't simply say what she ought: "Sorry about that, I don't know how to read the law, and I made a big mistake."

The difference is that I won't cost the State several thousand dollars in wasted legal time.

And for $2.99, I'll buy the Judge-Ette some prunes! I'm really a nice guy.

Anonymous said...

"I'll take ConLaw from someone who practices law--like Esenberg or Althouse. Thanks."

Typical. Illy-T is rock solid, along with Ed Fallone, a Marquette Constitutional Law prof. They lay out compelling arguments.

Amy said...

Typical. Illy-T is rock solid, along with Ed Fallone, a Marquette Constitutional Law prof. They lay out compelling arguments.

By which you mean "They're liberal so I agree with THEM." You're doing the same thing you're accusing Dad29 of doing, but I don't expect you to realize that.

I've never seen anything compelling or rock-solid from illusory except leftism.

Billiam said...

Dad, you know that to the left, Separation of Powers means separating anyone other than themselves from power. After all, they know what's best. The rest of us are just proles.

Anonymous said...

Amy--No, I fully understand that Illy-T and Ed Fallone lean left, but they are using a literal interpretation of the Constitution and established case law. Just because they are of a particcular ideology does not mean they are automatically "wrong" with their findings. I wouldn't expect you to take the blinders off as a partisan yourself.

John Foust said...

Because nothing spells respect for women like demeaning them with "-ette" and baby language and attempting to insult men by calling them women.

Anonymous said...

Or fucking Caleb Foust in the ass.

Atlanta Roofing said...

It's anyone's guess as to why Wisconsin Republicans decided to suddenly change their minds and comply with the court order. Maybe they concluded their poll numbers had dropped far enough, and provoking a Constitutional crisis would be too politically damaging. Maybe their lawyers concluded they did not actually have a strong case for ignoring the court order, and as such actually grew worried about being found in contempt of court. Whatever their rationale, they appear to have stepped back from the brink. At least for now.