My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here you go:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to review eight cases ranging from guns on public buses to open records to how low-income properties are assessed to how far a police officer’s “hot pursuit” can extend into a citizen’s home. With less than a month before Wisconsin voters head to the polls to choose a Supreme Court justice, the variety and reach of the court’s chosen case load reminds us how important voters’ choice is.
For example, in State v. Weber, an officer turned on his lights to pull over Weber for a busted taillight. Weber proceeded to ignore the officer, pull into his attached garage and head into his house. The officer entered the garage without a warrant and detained Weber. Weber subsequently pled no contest to felony drunk driving (it was not his first time driving drunk).
The question the court will decide is whether the officer should have obtained a warrant before entering Weber’s garage. Even though he was drunk driving, the officer did not know that at the time and was only pursuing him for the minor offense of a broken taillight. Should law enforcement be permitted to enter private property without a warrant for such a minor offense?
In Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, the court will decide on the appropriate balance between the public interest in keeping a record hidden versus the public’s right to know under Wisconsin’s open records laws. In this case, the Democratic Party sought videos in which Attorney General Brad Schimel, who was a candidate at the time, conducted training regarding victims of sensitive crimes and how to prosecute internet sexual predator cases.
The Democratic Party wanted the videos because they thought there might be some embarrassing things in the video that could be twisted against Schimel during the campaign. The DOJ refused to release the videos, saying the public interest in protecting the identities of the victims and the techniques used by investigators and prosecutors of internet sexual predator cases outweighed the public’s interest in seeing the videos. The Democratic Party disagreed and appealed. The court must decide where the appropriate balance lies between these competing public interests.
In Wisconsin Carry Inc. v. City of Madison, the court will decide if the city of Madison violated the state’s concealed carry law when implementing a ban on guns on public buses. Wisconsin’s concealed carry statute prohibits local units of governments from enacting an ordinance or resolution regulating the ownership, transportation, taxation or carrying of firearms.
The city of Madison has banned people from carrying firearms on city buses, but claims the statute does not apply because it is a “bus rule” and not an ordinance or resolution and that the rule was enacted by the city of Madison’s Transit and Parking Commission — not the city itself. Wisconsin Carry sued the city, arguing — rightly — the statute is designed to prevent local governments from enacting gun laws more restrictive than the state as a whole.
The Supreme Court must decide how the statute must be applied. Of course, in this case, the Legislature could have easily clarified the statute before now, but they must certainly do so next year if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the city of Madison.
As the highest court in the state, the Supreme Court decides cases that govern how the laws apply to us, how far our government can reach into our lives, how transparent our government must be and countless other important matters. As such, the selection of each justice on that court is of critical importance. On April 5, Wisconsin’s voters will choose between two drastically difference candidates.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg is running for the Supreme Court for the second time after being rejected by the voters five years ago. She is proudly a liberal’s liberal with a decidedly activist perspective regarding the role of a Supreme Court justice.
Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley was appointed to the court in 2015 and is on the other end of the judicial philosophy spectrum. She has demonstrated a healthy understanding that judges must act according to how the law is and not how they would like it to be.
Unlike the United States Supreme Court, the voters decide who sits on the state Supreme Court. Vote wisely.
Where can you find any court decisions by either Bradley or Kloppenburg?
Kloppenberg is a Presiding Judge in the District IV Court of Appeals who lost the last Supreme Court election by a razor’s edge after Waukesha “found” some uncounted ballots.
Bradley is a political sycophant to Scott Walker who has been appointed to Milwaukee Cty Circuit Court by him in December 2012, the court of appeals in May 2015 and finally the Supreme Court in October 2015. It appears she may have some political baggage, if not to Walker and his acolytes then hopefully, to the independent voters of Wisconsin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rebecca-bradley-homophobia_us_56ddb492e4b0ffe6f8ea06b6
Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley was appointed to the court in 2015 and is on the other end of the judicial philosophy spectrum. She has demonstrated a healthy understanding that judges must act according to how the law is and not how they would like it to be.
This is hilarious …way to save the punchline to the end. How has she demonstrated a healthy understanding that judges must act according to the law? could it be when she ruled without hearing the arguments or was it when she decided campaigning for her job was m,ore important than hearing arguments????
One thing we do know for sure, is how she would like the world to be after reading her writings yesterday
I know people “evolve ” on the issues of the day
But her comments are straight out of Dickens .
Of gays – “they should just get AIDS and decrease the excess population ”
This is a position you rarely evolve from .
Even in the day of Trump , wishing people to die of a disease because
You don’t agree with the lifestyle of that person is hard to walk back believably
Mark,
So you support the liberal attempt at the JS online to “slutify” poor Rebecca Bradley?
JS even ran with FALSE facts!
somehow, I did not see this same liberal outrage over Bill Clinton in White House, who actually DID have extra-marital affairs!
kev:
The fact that she did have an affair with the firm’s COO while both were married is in the court documents. If you think they are true then you should demand a charge of perjury against her. You can’t have it both ways.
How do your “family values” parallel Bradley’s, who is a middle-aged, childless, divorced adulteress that happens to be anti-gay and anti-environment?
Baldy,
Ex Husband denies there was an affair before they were officially separated, and JS knew it.
So it is OK to slut Rebecca Bradley up?
What about Russ Feingold, Chris Abele, Tom Barret, Tammy Baldwin?
OK to slut them up for their extra marital behavior too?
The liberal gosssip cesspool no longer wants private business, private?
The Bill Clinton standard for this is now suspended?
Very, Very interesting, and disgusting.
According to WELs
“The Bible and Lutherans teach that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is a partnership in which the man is the loving head. Marriage is established by God. It is a holy relationship not to be broken. A married person sins if he or she divorces without a biblical reason. Before God, no divorce is valid except in cases of fornication or desertion. The tendency to consider marriage as unimportant results in great harm to the family, the church, and the nation.”
Baldy said,
“How do your “family values” parallel Bradley’s, who is a middle-aged, childless, divorced adulteress that happens to be anti-gay and anti-environment?”
Being middle-aged is against family values? How?
Being “childless” is against family values? How? What if her court decisions are very “pro-child”?
Being divorced is a problem for a politician? Since when?
Even if she is alleged to be an “adulteress”, hasn’t Bill Clinton, and the liberal political cesspool, made that a source of pride for a politician?
“Anti-gay”…you mean the same exact positions Obama had when he took the oath of office of president? She can’t agree with the 2009 Obama?
Pat,
If she was a WELS member, that is correct church position.
I agree she may have violated the biblical standard for divorce. However, she has the the free gift of grace and forgiveness through Christ. She has a Roman Catholic backround. So that church body should be responsible for any possible, specific, Matthew 18 correction, if she is straying from Jesus.
What I have a beef with is: Why liberals can slime her about this, but then scream it’s a “private matter” with Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and the other litany of Democratic politicians cheating on their spouse! (In this case, the ex-spouse even says he was not cheated on!!!!)
Liberals are far from screaming that here. They are the ones, through the National Enquirer, known as JS locally, dredging this up and trying to “slut her up”.
Where are the women’s groups railing against this?
Where are the liberal calls for this being a “private” matter?
I have a problem with the “bearing false witness” (8th commandment) the JS reporter did on this in relation to the ex-husband who denies there was an affair while they were actively married….and failed to print that fact when reproter was informed by him of that fact.
“What I have a beef with is: Why liberals can slime her about this, but then scream it’s a “private matter” with Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and the other litany of Democratic politicians cheating on their spouse! (In this case, the ex-spouse even says he was not cheated on!!!!)”
WHAT!!! Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner cheated on their spouses! How come this was never reported by any of the networks and why hasn’t anyone made a big deal out of it?? OH WAIT….The media did and a big deal was made out of it as it should have been.
But, I guess both Bill and Tony had the free gift of grace and forgiveness through Christ. Not a problem then.
kev:
Could you provide a link to where anybody says she wasn’t married during the affair? The JS article says she was, so please provide the up-date. Thanks.
As far as anybody else not meeting your standards, who cares? None of them are currently running for the the WI SC as a protector of family values. Your double standards are showing again. There must be a whole chapter in “Kevin’s Book of Excuses” on that topic.
PS: And I would hold the adultery against Bradley if she (and her rabid supporters) weren’t such transparent hypocrites. If you didn’t like it when Clinton or Feingold did it you should be just as outraged over the Bradley fiasco. And you should be double mad at walker for not vetting a candidate that they knew would get intense scrutiny.
That should read ” And I would NOT hold the adultery…..”.
Sorry for the confusion…..
Pat,
1.) In both those cases, it was not reported…but actually covered up by liberal media during the election.
2.) This alleged incident was 14 years ago.
3.) Ex-husband says she never cheated!
http://www.wtmj.com/shows/charlie-sykes/allegation-against-supreme-court-justice-rebecca-bradley-being-refuted-by-ex-husband
So this is a non-story. It’s only purpose was to “slut her up”, which is an utter disgrace.
I thought liberals were against slut shaming?
Baldy said:
“Could you provide a link to where anybody says she wasn’t married during the affair? The JS article says she was, so please provide the up-date. Thanks.”
See above. Ex husband told reporter that! Not only did reporter ignore that…. Reporter also refused to quote him in story which gives story whole different context.
This was the most disgusting thing I’ve seen done by liberal news media since yesterday.
When are we going to see this kind of shameful reporting on Chris Abele, Tom Barrett, Russ Feingold, and Tammy Baldwin?
I’m tired of liberals being anti-woman!
Baldy said,
“PS: And I would hold the adultery against Bradley if she (and her rabid supporters) weren’t such transparent hypocrites.”
So you do support liberal slut shaming, but only for conservative women?
I don’t support adultery either, but I take issue that it is only reported on, erroneously, for conservative women, but ignored for liberal Democrats politicians.
Liberals practically have an award for their fellow liberal politicians for adultery these days….so why is this an issue to dig up by liberal stooge reporters? Is it because liberals hate conservative women more than black conservatives and even more than white police officers?
“1.) In both those cases, it was not reported…but actually covered up by liberal media during the election.
2.) This alleged incident was 14 years ago.
3.) Ex-husband says she never cheated!”
1.) Funny, I heard all about it in the media. Where were you?
2.) So? Is there a statute of limitations on sin?
3.) “At one time I had a romantic relationship with (Bednall), which we both believed might result in marriage. We broke off that relationship in November 2002, although we have continued to date on a nonexclusive basis since that time,” wrote Bradley, who was divorced in 2004.
kev:
As always your reading comprehension is faulty. I made a typo, I corrected it, and I apologized, “That should read ” And I would NOT hold the adultery…..”.
Sorry for the confusion…..”
Are you really that challenged? There is help out there if you look for it.
“Liberals practically have an award for their fellow liberal politicians for adultery these days….so why is this an issue to dig up by liberal stooge reporters? Is it because liberals hate conservative women more than black conservatives and even more than white police officers?”. Another verse from kevin’s Book of Made Up Stuff.
Pat:
Good rebuttal. Those facts will make kevins head explode once again.
Bradley will continue on the Supreme Court, and there is not one thing you can do about it.
Pat,
So the Bill Clinton liberal standard of “it’s a private matter” does not apply? Interesting.
We should expose all sin on every politician?
No liberal politician would ever survive that equal standard of scrutiny without left wing media bias.
I thought it was a “sin” in the liberal religion to slut shame any woman, no matter what they have done?
Liberals have now thrown that commandment out? Feminists are OK with that new position?
Kevin,
I like the way your deflect when I refute what you said.
Kevin,
I like the way you deflect when I refute what you say.
Pat,
I’m not refuting, just bringing up a valid point. To me, a marriage is over once a couple is legally separated, like what happened here. Even in a speedy divorce the legal process grinds for a long time.
If the ex says she didn’t cheat, we should take his word for it because he is the one most readily harmed by such action. You would not know because the scandal rag refused to print any of the ex husbands’ statements! That made for extra slimy journalism here.
And if she did do anything to harm the marriage, his public statements show forgiveness and it should not be an issue.
Unless you are purely interested in slut shaming women. If so, let’s run through the personal lives of every liberal politician for last 25 years….it would probably be a lesson on why we need more VD prevention.
Let’s start with Russ Feingold.
Pat,
Russ is twice divorced….imagine the dirt one candid up on him if JS used same exact investigative standard it used here!
Let’s do it!
Is this what we all want elections to devolve to?
OK Kev. Give us the dirt on Russ. I’m all ears.
To me, a marriage is over once a couple is legally separated
Is that the official position of the bible, or you?
Her husband says she didn’t have an affair while they were married. She says she did. Who would know better, him or her?
Kev,
Where did you see that they were “legally” separated? I can’t find anything on that.
kev:
Just a refresher on WI law (below). It looks like Ms Bradley would be an adulteress if they did the nasty prior to both parties were divorced. Court records show she admitted to an affair prior to her divorce. For a law and order kinda guy like you this blatant flaunting of the legal code by, of all things, a family values conservative candidate for the SC, ( and a lawyer, no less) should be extremely troubling to you.
944.16 Adultery.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty
of a Class I felony:
(1)A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person
not the married person’s spouse; or
(2) A person who has sexual intercourse with a person who is
married to another
.
History:
1977 c. 173
;
1993 a. 486
;
2001 a. 109
.
Pat,
Check the ex-husbands issued press statement from Thursday.
JS knew it, but ignored it.
Baldy,
Let’s start with Tammy Baldwin.
Kevin, check Rebecca’s quote.
kev:
Is Tammy running for the WI Supreme Court? If so please send me a link to the press release, I must have missed it.
The fact that one or the other or both were “legally separated” is moot here. If the divorce wasn’t final the statute (see above) applies. You can’t wordsmith the statute, it is pretty simple.
Oh, and while you are up, define what “actively married” means. Is it a legal term or something from your personal vocabulary.