Wednesday Quickies (Not that Wed. is the special quickie day, or anything.)
Item One: Eric Bolling. Not really anything more to report on him. specifically, except he was getting hammered by decent people on line, yesterday. But he is likely happy about . . . .
Item Two: That horrible Racist Ad being run in California. Granted, the evil shit running it, just like Bolling, is singing the "I'm not a racist," song, even if his ad is so repulsive it makes Bolling's cracks seem tame by comparison. Now you might be wondering why I'm not cussing my head off, if it's that bad. Yes, it is that horrible. But hey. Even I get worn out sometimes. Anyway, under the wing nut definition of what is a racist, and that would be as long as you can point out someone worse, you get to believe, no matter how bullshit, that you are not a racist, Bolling wins out. I think that who ever did that Cali add needs for someone to pull a Dr. Laura soon. Short of something involving Neo Nazis, the Klan, or a violent bias crime popping up in the news cycle soon, that guy is now the benchmark.
Item Three: Palin Emails. Despite the twisted cries of Palinistas cheering the lack of a major smoking gun, there's the other two stories. There's a gap in the chunk delivered, and we all know that not only did the Arctic Cyborg Decoy Unit use a non state account for state business, some of her staff did as well. So that makes the people cheering Palin's (passive) actions here look doubly stupid. I saw that law professor I need to stop talking about calling Palin a genius over this shit. As if Palin did anything to cause the current admin. in Alaska to take this long, do such an amateurish job they did in in hard copy, and do the data dump in June of 2011, the (almost) Summer that started with the media's newfound obsession with congressional cybering and sexting. Ya. Either she's some Sith Lord, or she did not have anything to do with the story. Recently. Oh. And since I am a professional forensic data jockey, I will say that I saw some of that privilege log. And it's really shitty. If that were submitted in actual litigation, a team of lawyers would be needed to generate the challenge letters. But you would not need to crowd source it. (Hey, I just used contemporary jargon. Yea me!)
Item Four: WI Supremes overturn injunction about Union Busting Law. Now I wasn't that surprised. I did not read the prior orders. But I suspected that it was going to be shot down mostly because I thought, politics, and at best the argument seemed a mite thin. I saw (once I got to thinking about it and honestly, I did not analyze it all that much,) the issues as a clash between two ideas. First one is the idea that laws are supposed to have meaning and be enforceable (but I did not dig out my Equities Horn Book. I just had that one loaded up in the old head.) And the other idea is whether or not the trickery pulled by the WI GOP senate actually rose to the level of serious enough to warrant equitable relief? The bare majority said no, to that last one. Basically, they ignored the first one. And they, Prosser, particularly in his opinion, were overly harsh on the lower court judge. In her defense, I say she did punt the question about the disharmony between conflicting cases to the upper court.
Oddly, they did not really act on that question. That's because for some really fucked up reason that really is not made clear in the opinion, they did not hear the case under appellate jurisdiction but under original jurisdiction. Well, I am about to go all lawyer here and 'splain why they did that. (Not really knowing WI jurisprudence, but knowing the general rules) appellate jurisdiction would have been a narrower scope of review. The Majority would have been constrained with the findings of fact from the lower court, and only could have ruled on the law, and whether the judge handled the matter properly. In bypassing that and invoking original jurisdiction, they allowed themselves to review the matter under what is called de novo level of review. That way they get to make new findings of fact.
Sounds like judicial activism to me, kids.
But enough of that. But to say the major dissent was an interesting read. It's author was very sharp in her criticism of the majority. Got to wonder what a party is like, with that bunch? Hatfields and McCoys?
Ok. I'll stop there. As always I reserve the right to change, edit, delete or wipe or add what ever I wanna, when ever I wanna.
Item Two: That horrible Racist Ad being run in California. Granted, the evil shit running it, just like Bolling, is singing the "I'm not a racist," song, even if his ad is so repulsive it makes Bolling's cracks seem tame by comparison. Now you might be wondering why I'm not cussing my head off, if it's that bad. Yes, it is that horrible. But hey. Even I get worn out sometimes. Anyway, under the wing nut definition of what is a racist, and that would be as long as you can point out someone worse, you get to believe, no matter how bullshit, that you are not a racist, Bolling wins out. I think that who ever did that Cali add needs for someone to pull a Dr. Laura soon. Short of something involving Neo Nazis, the Klan, or a violent bias crime popping up in the news cycle soon, that guy is now the benchmark.
Item Three: Palin Emails. Despite the twisted cries of Palinistas cheering the lack of a major smoking gun, there's the other two stories. There's a gap in the chunk delivered, and we all know that not only did the Arctic Cyborg Decoy Unit use a non state account for state business, some of her staff did as well. So that makes the people cheering Palin's (passive) actions here look doubly stupid. I saw that law professor I need to stop talking about calling Palin a genius over this shit. As if Palin did anything to cause the current admin. in Alaska to take this long, do such an amateurish job they did in in hard copy, and do the data dump in June of 2011, the (almost) Summer that started with the media's newfound obsession with congressional cybering and sexting. Ya. Either she's some Sith Lord, or she did not have anything to do with the story. Recently. Oh. And since I am a professional forensic data jockey, I will say that I saw some of that privilege log. And it's really shitty. If that were submitted in actual litigation, a team of lawyers would be needed to generate the challenge letters. But you would not need to crowd source it. (Hey, I just used contemporary jargon. Yea me!)
Item Four: WI Supremes overturn injunction about Union Busting Law. Now I wasn't that surprised. I did not read the prior orders. But I suspected that it was going to be shot down mostly because I thought, politics, and at best the argument seemed a mite thin. I saw (once I got to thinking about it and honestly, I did not analyze it all that much,) the issues as a clash between two ideas. First one is the idea that laws are supposed to have meaning and be enforceable (but I did not dig out my Equities Horn Book. I just had that one loaded up in the old head.) And the other idea is whether or not the trickery pulled by the WI GOP senate actually rose to the level of serious enough to warrant equitable relief? The bare majority said no, to that last one. Basically, they ignored the first one. And they, Prosser, particularly in his opinion, were overly harsh on the lower court judge. In her defense, I say she did punt the question about the disharmony between conflicting cases to the upper court.
Oddly, they did not really act on that question. That's because for some really fucked up reason that really is not made clear in the opinion, they did not hear the case under appellate jurisdiction but under original jurisdiction. Well, I am about to go all lawyer here and 'splain why they did that. (Not really knowing WI jurisprudence, but knowing the general rules) appellate jurisdiction would have been a narrower scope of review. The Majority would have been constrained with the findings of fact from the lower court, and only could have ruled on the law, and whether the judge handled the matter properly. In bypassing that and invoking original jurisdiction, they allowed themselves to review the matter under what is called de novo level of review. That way they get to make new findings of fact.
Sounds like judicial activism to me, kids.
But enough of that. But to say the major dissent was an interesting read. It's author was very sharp in her criticism of the majority. Got to wonder what a party is like, with that bunch? Hatfields and McCoys?
Ok. I'll stop there. As always I reserve the right to change, edit, delete or wipe or add what ever I wanna, when ever I wanna.
posted by Abstentus at 7:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home