SCOTUSblog reports.
ADDED: Here's the post from last month "The Wall Street Journal urges the U.S. Supreme Court to take the free-speech case arising out of Wisconsin's John Doe investigation."
I thought the Supreme Court should take cert., but it's important to see that this case was about a federal court interfering with proceedings in state court, and at this point, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is hearing the state court case. The federal court abstained, and one of the reasons for abstention is that the state court may choose an interpretation of the state statute that would avoid the federal constitutional question. The Supreme Court's denial of cert. doesn't mean that the 7th Circuit got the abstention doctrine right.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
So violations of the Constitution are cool if a state court is hearing a case about it?
Scotusblog is saying the Petitioners got what they were asking for, though I'm not sure what exactly that is.
They are allowed to file redacted orders or something.
The honeybadger and the SCOTUS both just don't care.
No comments yet from John Doe who remains under an eternal very serious criminal investigation, but then it is a crime itself for Kafka like targets Chisholm has on trial to speak.
I'm OK with taking a wait and see approach then. Conservatives can do that. It's the extremely excitable progressives who have a hard time letting things play out.
The parties should speak against the John Doe process and, if prosecuted for violating the unconstitutional prior restraints, file lawsuits against all involved. The targets of the unconstitutional John Doe process must take a scorched earth tactic and burn everybody they can to the ground.
"So violations of the Constitution are cool if a state court is hearing a case about it?"
If the state court is already engaged in hearing a matter, then it is the state court's obligation to apply federal law as well as state law. If one of the parties begins a separate proceeding, in federal court, aimed at stopping the state court proceeding, the general rule is for the federal court to abstain. It's a matter of efficiency and comity, and in the long run it reinforces the Supremacy Clause duty of the state courts to enforce federal law, including all the rights that arise as defenses.
There needs to be a good-enough reason to interfere anyway. I thought there was.
And then Jarndyce v. Jarndyce rolled along.
Not to worry, SCOWI is will end the investigation into the groups that sent them millions to get elected to the court.
Does this leave open the possibility of U.S. Supreme Court action following resolution by the Wisconsin court, or is it now closed out permanently?
garage mahal said...
Not to worry, SCOWI is will end the investigation into the groups that sent them millions to get elected to the court.
I assume you would consider it much more just if the conservative justices recused themselves, then the liberals decide to continue the investigation into people who contributed to their political opponents.
Bears repeating: A Republican is in charge of the investigation.
"Bears repeating: A Republican is in charge of the investigation."
Keep beating that horse, garage.
WisKochistan will protect itself...
You would think that with all the dead horse beating Bitchtits engages in, he would lose some weight.
I guess not even the calorie burning activity of dead horse beating can overcome an otherwise slovenly diet and lifestyle.
"Bears repeating: A Republican is in charge of the investigation."
I read that because I thought it was about bears.
Will those bears never think of anything new to say?!
"I voted for Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin's 2012 gubernatorial recall election," Schmitz said in a sworn declaration filed with the U.S. District Court on Tuesday.
"garage mahal said...
Bears repeating: A Republican is in charge of the investigation."
Bares (you moron) repeating, Schmitz has never run as GOP. Never donated to the GOP. Never publicly supported a GOP candidate. And Chisholm in in charge.
There are plenty of people (well, at least 1) who voted for Walker in the recall election because they disagreed with the entire process.
That doesn't make them Republicans.
garage's claim about the 'Republican' prosecutor has been debunked to his face in prior comment sections...but he continues to push out the lies and disinformation.
My dilemma is trying to figure out if garage is just too stupid, or just too dishonest. I want to say both, but I feel like that is taking the easy way out.
MadisonMan, if he's going to go by the 'one drop' rule, I guess using a 'one vote' rule is at least consistent.
Livermoron said...
garage's claim about the 'Republican' prosecutor has been debunked to his face in prior comment sections...but he continues to push out the lies and disinformation.
My dilemma is trying to figure out if garage is just too stupid, or just too dishonest. I want to say both, but I feel like that is taking the easy way out.
5/18/15, 11:24 AM
Sometimes the easy way out is also the right way.
However in the case of our esteemed garage, outside of Walker he isn't usually so stupid and dishonest so I suspect there is some special animus he has towards Walker that short circuits his honesty and logic neuronic circuits on all things Walker related.
I felt the pretty blatant violations more than warranted interference. I doubt they'd wait for a state court to rule on a blatant violation of voting rights.
Bares (you moron) repeating, Schmitz has never run as GOP
He's an attorney and a former federal prosecutor. They "run as GOP". How can it be possible that you are this dumb?
"Mr. Schmitz spent over forty years serving his nation as an Army officer and as a federal prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice," Schmitz's attorney, Randall Crocker, said in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "As a prosecutor, he represented the United States in both criminal cases and on counterterrorism task forces. He was a finalist for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin during the administration of George W. Bush."
"Mr. Schmitz spent over forty years serving his nation as an Army officer and as a federal prosecutor in the United States Department of Justice," Schmitz's attorney, Randall Crocker, said in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "As a prosecutor, he represented the United States in both criminal cases and on counterterrorism task forces. He was a finalist for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin during the administration of George W. Bush."
...and?
Republicans have been known to name judges who aren't remotely conservative.
Schmidt isn't a Republican by any known definition of the word.
Republicans have been known to name judges who aren't remotely conservative.
Because a true conservative would never investigate a fellow conservative. He's not a hack like us!
Doesn't matter anyway. Did Walker's campaign coordinate with outside groups in violation of Chapter 11 of Wisconsin Statute governing campaign finances, or not? Of course Althouse, or any other Walker apologists don't want to have that debate.
Chapter 11 Campaign Financing
garage mahal said...
Bares (you moron) repeating, Schmitz has never run as GOP
He's an attorney and a former federal prosecutor. They "run as GOP". How can it be possible that you are this dumb?
What? LOL He has never been on a ballot as a Republican. Ever. He also has never publicly endorsed a Republican, given money to a Republican candidate, or worked for the Republican Party. Ever.
He said he voted for Walker, but of course there is no proof of that. That was just a way to give cover for what a partisan with hunt John Doe is. And it's lapped up like mother's milk by idiots like you.
But even if you take it as truth, so did lots of people that aren't Republicans. Because Republicans do not account for 53% of the voters in this state. So it would hardly make him a Republican.
Schmitz career as a government lawyer hit the skids, and John Chisholm threw him a huge bone, and he took it.
Corky.
"Did Walker's campaign coordinate with outside groups in violation of Chapter 11 of Wisconsin Statute governing campaign finances, or not? Of course Althouse, or any other Walker apologists don't want to have that debate."
You mean the statue the federal court called "screamingly unconstitutional?
The DOJ needs set up shop inside Wisconsin.
"Madison — Democratic lawmakers Monday called for a federal criminal investigation of Gov. Scott Walker's jobs agency, which is facing a tough audit and a separate report that the Wisconsin governor's top aides pressed for a now delinquent $500,000 loan from taxpayers to a failed Milwaukee construction company."
Will those bears never think of anything new to say?!
Not until they get a good running back and somebody that an throw a football.
Garage..... You have a tendency to toss out an item that is tangentially related to the topic....Schmitz is a Repbulican....as though that is all we need to know about the John Doe investigation to shut us up. I suspect there are people on either side of the aisle on any matter that might be convinced to take up with the other side.
And as for the Walker loan...what does that have to do with the John Doe probe? Heck, I know of a person who took over after Doyle left and can cite examples of the Doyle administration making loans through agencies and never even bothering to follow for payments.
If you want to argue a topic, then argue the topic and skip the straw men and red herrings.
.Schmitz is a Repbulican....as though that is all we need to know about the John Doe investigation to shut us up
Doesn't matter anyway. Either the law was broken or it wasn't.
Garage....that makes the most sense. Schmitz aside, we have an elected Supreme Court that will decide this matter.
we have an elected Supreme Court that will decide this matter.
That was elected from the groups under investigation. Welcome to Wisconsin.
"garage mahal said...
That was elected from the groups under investigation. Welcome to Wisconsin."
Really? The group was "a majority Wisconsin voters" dumbshit.
The group was "a majority Wisconsin voters" dumbshit.
And millions from the groups under investigation. Absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever. None!
Bitchtits is like the Abrahamson of commenters.
Except the part about having an education past high school level.
And minus the obesity.
I'm not sure if the pouting bitch on the bench is a jew hating Hamas supporter, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Our very own law school dropout, jobless loser chimes in with yet another hot take on a legal thread. Well done Shitty Pants!
Curious George: Bares (you moron) repeating...
"Bears," George. Meaning "Holds up under" or "is capable of".
Awwww,are your widdle terrorist and democracy hating feelings hurt, fat boy?
Go diabetes, go!
Because a true conservative would never investigate a fellow conservative. He's not a hack like us!
Can you explain how this bullshit is REMOTELY relevant to anything?
You: "But Schmidt was appointed by Bush"
Me: "Yes. Republicans have been known to name non-Republicans to the bench."
You: "We won't investigate hacks"
What the fuck does that even mean?
Doesn't matter anyway. Did Walker's campaign coordinate with outside groups in violation of Chapter 11 of Wisconsin Statute governing campaign finances, or not?
First Amendment trumps the law of the Democratic legislature that passed the law. Sorry, sunshine.
Of course Althouse, or any other Walker apologists don't want to have that debate.
Garage mahal: You know, Bull Connor wasn't THAT bad a guy. Those blacks WERE breaking state law and all...
Either the law was broken or it wasn't.
Garage would've REALLY been a hoot in Selma back in the 60's.
"Screw the Constitution --- did they break this state law passed by Democrats?"
That was elected from the groups under investigation.
You mean groups who abided by the Constitution, unlike the law you champion which does not?
I mention that Republicans name non Republicans to the bench because your "evidence" that Schmidt is a Republican is that Bush named Schmidt to the bench and a claim that he once voted for Walker.
See Souter, David for a non-Republican named to the bench (4even his champion, RINO Warren Rudman, said he knew Souter would side with liberalism on the Court)
I thought the Supreme Court should take cert., but it's important to see that this case was about a federal court interfering with proceedings in state court,
That's too nuanced for the Wisconsin Progressives, especially the ones found on this very blog.
If you want to argue a topic, then argue the topic and skip the straw men and red herrings.
How dare you tell him not to use his one and only tactic?
Actually he waggled his ass for a Bush appointment and didn't get it, so a) is likely a political whore and b) probably a Dem in revenge.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा