Milwaukee Federalists

Charting the backwaters

2012-01-19T18:00:00.001-06:00

Either/Or: Professors Zephyr Rain Teachout and Akhil Reed Amar – Contradictions and Reconciliation (2012) by Seth Barrett Tillman is available for download at SSRN and at Selected Works. Per the abstract,

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a constitutional backwater. So much so, that there is no substantial discussion of this clause in any federal adjudication (although the Office of Legal Counsel has regularly opined on it). Backwaters, however, have an unappreciated and significant virtue. They allow us to discuss our precommitments, assumptions, and methodological positions free from the distractions of the great political issues of the day – issues which naturally tend to divide us in ways which may be unconnected to the merits. Simply put, backwaters allow us to freely debate the merits of contestable worldviews. That is what I propose to do here.

Both Professors Zephyr Rain Teachout and Akhil Reed Amar have discussed the Foreign Emoluments Clause in their recent publications. Amar is an originalist, perhaps the most influential American originalist of the late twentieth century; Teachout, although, perhaps, not an originalist per se, regularly writes in an originalist mode – parsing drafting history, text, structure, precedent, and history – in search of a public (or, perhaps, an intended) meaning contemporaneous with ratification. Both Teachout and Amar might be fairly characterized as left-of-center, but both are also clearly in the academic mainstream. Both Teachout and Amar’s publications are actively cited, if not widely acclaimed, and my own view is that citations and public acclaim vastly underestimate the influence of these two scholars. (However, as do all mere humans, both Teachout and Amar stray into some truly puzzling errors from time to time.) Indeed, there are now several publications that cite both Teachout and Amar.

Interestingly, each takes a position in regard to the Foreign Emoluments Clause which is in clear conflict with the position taken by the other. The stakes here involve more than the contours, scope, purpose, and original public meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (which, in itself, is not an entirely minor thing).

If Amar is correct, then Teachout must be wrong, and it follows that Teachout’s views in regard to congressional power to limit election-related speech and spending are (if not flatly wrong) something that must be carefully reconsidered in light of Amar’s contrary position.

On the other hand, if Teachout is correct, then Amar must be wrong, and it follows that Amar’s views in regard to constitutional structure, intratextualism, and the meaning of coordinate language in other constitutional clauses are (if not plainly wrong) something that must be closely reexamined in light of Teachout’s contrary teachings. This paper will explore that conflict, and, then, I will attempt to reconcile the two positions.

ESI does it

2012-01-16T06:00:00.001-06:00

In the latest issue of Engage, the Litigation Practice Group's articles include A Modest Proposal for Human Limitations on Cyberdiscovery, by Richard M. Esenberg

Sorting them out

2012-01-12T18:00:00.003-06:00

"As the dissenters warned and as the amount of ink spilled in this single case attests, Boumediene's [Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.723, 787 (2008)] airy suppositions have caused great difficulty for the Executive and the courts. See 553 U.S. at 824-26 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting); id. at 827-28 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Luckily, this is a shrinking category of cases. The ranks of Guantanamo detainees will not be replenished. Boumediene fundamentally altered the calculus of war, guaranteeing that the benefit of intelligence that might be gained-even from high-value detainees-is outweighed by the systemic cost of defending detention decisions. Id. at 828 (Scalia, J., dissenting). While the court in Boumediene expressed sensitivity to such concerns, it did not find them 'dispositive.' Id. at 769. Boumediene's logic is compelling: take no prisoners. Point taken." Brown, J., Latif v. Obama, No. 10-5319 (D.C. Cir., October 14, 2011), pp. 52-53 (via Stephen I. Vladeck at ACSblog)

Common Ground: The Founding Era

2012-01-06T18:00:00.001-06:00

At First Principles, an excerpt from A Student’s Guide to American Political Thought, by George W. Carey

William F. Buckley Jr.: Right Man, Right Time

2011-12-11T06:00:00.001-06:00

Geoffrey Kabaservice reviews Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism, by Carl T. Bogus.

"...Bogus’s attempt to credit the success of the conservative movement almost exclusively to Buckley is ivory tower history with a vengeance. Ideas have consequences, but they don’t make political realities by themselves. ..."

State Court Docket Watch Fall 2011

2011-11-20T08:57:00.000-06:00

Now up at the national Federalist Society website.

In an effort to increase dialogue about state court jurisprudence, the Federalist Society presents State Court Docket Watch. This newsletter is one component of the State Courts Project, presenting original research on state court jurisprudence and illustrating new trends and ground-breaking decisions in the state courts. This edition contains updates on important state court decisions in New Jersey, New York, Alabama, Washington, Nebraska, Arkansas, and North Carolina.

Magarian on Justice Stevens

2011-11-09T06:00:00.002-06:00

Justice Stevens, Religion, and Civil Society, by Gregory P. Magarian, 2011 Wis. L. Rev. 733

Did Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the Supreme Court last year, harbor a bias against religion?

During his thirty-five years on the Court, Justice Stevens showed little favor for religious claimants. In Establishment Clause cases he advocated a strong doctrine of separation between church and state. In the most contentious Free Exercise Clause cases, he opposed exempting religious believers from laws that interfered with religious exercise. This combination of positions, unique among the Justices of the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts, has led commentators to charge Justice Stevens with hostility toward religion. In this Article, Professor Magarian debunks that conventional analysis and offers a new explanation of Justice Stevens‘s religion jurisprudence. Professor Magarian shows that Justice Stevens took the same approach to constitutional cases about churches that he took to constitutional cases about other powerful institutions of civil society, including the major political parties and voluntary membership associations. Justice Stevens resisted these varied civil society institutions‘ demands for increased constitutional autonomy, based on two persistent concerns.

First, Justice Stevens sought to constrain civil society institutions‘ coercive power over individuals. Second, he viewed civil society institutions‘ tendencies toward factionalism as a threat to national unity. Justice Stevens did not consider religion a special object of constitutional concern, let alone a special object of disdain. This descriptive insight allows Professor Magarian to make a fresh normative assessment of Justice Stevens‘s religion jurisprudence. Justice Stevens‘s anti-coercion principle provided the driving force behind his Establishment Clause opinions. Professor Magarian finds the anti-coercion principle normatively compelling in the abstract and well adapted to Establishment Clause disputes. In contrast, Justice Stevens‘s anti-factionalism principle drove his opinions about free exercise accommodations. Professor Magarian finds the anti-factionalism principle normatively problematic in general and particularly ill-suited to the problem of free exercise accommodations.

Roger Clegg, “Affirmative Action at the University of Wisconsin and Elsewhere During the Obama Era” October 18, 2011

2011-10-03T16:29:00.004-05:00

Roger Clegg will speak on "Affirmative Action at the University of Wisconsin and Elsewhere During the Obama Era" October 18, 2011 at a Noon luncheon at the Milwaukee Atheletic Club, 758 North Broadway. Presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter. Mr. Clegg is President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Reservations may be made by printing and mailing this form and sending with $20.00 ($15 for students, teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before October 14, 2011. Reservations may also be made by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who choose not to attend.

Mr. Clegg was the featured speaker at our chapter's August 16, 2007 event.

Wisconsin Court System website redesigned

2011-09-20T09:34:00.001-05:00

From yesterday's press release,

In addition to a new graphical presentation, the new Web site helps guides visitors with better organized tabs and drop-down menus, such as, "quick links" and "how do I?"

The "quick links" tab leads visitors to each court system department; the "How do I?" section helps guide visitors most directly to the area of the site they need, whether it's to pay a fine or find a courthouse.

The new design also incorporates, among other things, recent updates about Supreme Court Rules and the rule-making process. There's also a new "educational resources" section under "about the courts" to help teachers, students and others to find helpful information.

(via WisBlawg)

Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011

2011-09-16T13:32:00.000-05:00

At the national Federalist Society website,

The September 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community.

Court Challenges to Legislatively Enacted Tort Reforms

2011-08-22T16:10:00.000-05:00

The Summer 2011 issue of State Court Docket Watch is devoted to this article by Andrew Cook and Emily Kelchen.

Bar Watch Bulletins August 7-9, 2011

2011-08-13T13:45:00.001-05:00

At the Federalist Society's national website, reports from the American Bar Association annual meeting in Toronto:

August 7, 2011, Birthright Citizenship, Point-Counterpoint, Judicial Funding, Future ABA Leadership

August 8, 2011, ABA Medal, New ABA President, House of Delegates Action

August 9, 2011, House of Delegates, ABA President-Elect

August 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-08-08T09:30:00.001-05:00

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

August 9, 2011

9:30 a.m. Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Company of America (2010AP2074)
at Dist. II, 2727 North Grandview Blvd., Waukesha

ABA Watch August 2011

2011-08-05T09:30:00.000-05:00

This issue includes

•ABA House of Delegates Considers Policies on Use of Foreign Law, Gun Control, and Duty of Care at Annual Meeting

•Judicial Disqualification Policies to Be Considered by ABA House of Delegates

•2011 ABA Award Recipients

•Scrutiny of ABA Accreditation of Law Schools

Gregory Katsas 'The Obamacare Litigation: An Insider's Account' August 16, 2011

2011-07-23T14:51:00.002-05:00

Gregory G. Katsas will speak on "The Obamacare Litigation: An Insider's Account" at a Noon luncheon Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway. Presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter.

Mr. Katsas is partner with Jones Day and is Co-lead counsel for the private plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit case Florida v. Department of Health & Human Services.

Reservations may be made by printing and mailing this form with $20.00 ($15 for students, teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before August 9, 2011. Reservations may also be made by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who choose not to attend.

The national Federalist Society website includes video or audio of presentations by Mr. Katsas and articles by him. He also was the featured speaker at our chapter's July 19, 2007 event.

July 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-07-12T09:30:00.003-05:00

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

July 13, 2011

9:30 a.m. Guerrero v. City of Kenosha Housing Authority (2010AP2305)
at Dist. II, 2727 North Grandview Blvd., Waukesha

July 27, 2011

10:00 a.m. La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County (2010AP3120)
at Dist. IV, S.Ct. Hearing Room, 2d Floor East Wing, State Capitol, Madison

'Separation of Powers: Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding the Collective Bargaining Law' July 14, 2011 at Madison

2011-06-27T06:00:00.001-05:00

The Madison Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society now has a weblog. One of the first posts has information on this event, which features a discussion by Kevin St. John, Deputy Attorney General, and Professor Edward Fallone, Marquette University Law School, moderated by retired Justice Jon P. Wilcox.

Update: event video at Wisconsin Eye (via Edward A. Fallone at Marquette Law Faculty)

Engage Volume 12, Issue 1, June 2011

2011-06-10T12:00:00.002-05:00

At the national Federalist Society website,

The June 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community.

June 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-06-03T09:45:00.001-05:00

June 6, 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court

9:45 a.m. State v. Circuit Court for Dane County (2011AP765-W)
Per the court's May 4, 2011 order summarized on the docket "ORD that the resp., Circ. Crt for Dane Co., et al., shall each file a response to the petition for supervisory writ and for imm. temp. relief, with a supp. memo, on the issue of whether this court should accept juris. over the writ and on the merits of the substantive issues raised in the writ, on or before 5/18/2011. The response and supp. memo combined may not exceed 50 pages mono or 11,000 words proportional font is used. In lieu of such a response, a resp. may file a letter stating that he, she or it does not intend to file a response, but that the petition is not thereby admitted. See Wis. Stat. (Rule) 809.51(2).FRO that the pet. shall file a single reply to the responses on or before 5/27/11. The reply and supporting memo combined may not exceed 50 pages monospaced or 11,000 words proportional. The reply and supp. memo shall not incorporate by ref. any portion of the writ; instead, any material in that doc. upon which there is reliance should be restated in the reply.FRO that in add. to addressing the issues raised in the writ, the responses and reply shall address: (1) whether the writ should be dism. because pet. are not parties to the underlying action in the circ. crt., see In re Pet. of Heil, 230 Wis. 428, 284 N.W. 42 (1938-39); (2) whether the writ should be recast as a petition for orig. action publici juris, see WI Prof. Police Assn v. Lightbourn, 2001 WI 59, 243 Wis. 2d 512, 627 N.W.2d 807, and if recast, whether the parties should be realigned; (3) whether all resp. have been served with the writ; (4) whether any of the resp. intend to raise any issues or obj. regarding serv. of the writ, incl. immunity; (5) whether the DOJ represents J. Fitzgerald, S. Fitzgerald, M. Ellis, S. Suder, the Joint Comm. on Conf., the WI Senate, and/or the WI Assembly, as it does in the circ. crt; and (6) whether the Circ. Crt for Dane Co. is rep. by coun. and, if so, by whom. FRO that it is the court's intent to hold oral arg. on 6/6/2011 at 9:45."

Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear union case, by Scott Bauer, Associated Press, in Appleton Post-Crescent, May 5, 2011
(via WisPolitics)

June 7, 2011 Wisconsin Court of Appeals

10:00 a.m. McFarland State Bank v. Sherry (2010AP2473)

June 14, 2011 Wisconsin Court of Appeals

1:00 p.m. WI DNR v. Building and All Related or Attached Structures (2010AP2076)

June 23, 2011 Wisconsin Court of Appeals

9:30 a.m. State v. Davis (2010AP1856)

Justice Prosser re-elected

2011-05-31T12:00:00.002-05:00

Don Walker reports in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Updated: May 31, 2011 11:12 a.m.) Kloppenburg concedes election to Prosser.

(via Althouse)

Joseph Schmitz 'Liberty, Tolerance, and Shariah Supremacism' June 10, 2011

2011-05-30T11:00:00.004-05:00

The Honorable Joseph E. Schmitz will speak on "Liberty, Tolerance, and Shariah Supremacism" at a Noon luncheon Friday, June 10, 2011 at the Milwaukee Club, 706 North Jefferson Street. Presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter.

Mr. Schmitz is Chief Executive Officer, Joseph E. Schmitz, PLLC, and is a former Inspector General of the Department of Defense.

Reservations may be made by printing and mailing this form and sending with $20.00 ($15 for students, teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before June 6, 2011. Reservations may also be made by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who choose not to attend.

Bradley Foundation

2011-05-18T15:02:00.001-05:00

Acceptance speeches of this year's Bradley Prize winners.

Doctor Kildare

2011-05-17T16:27:00.000-05:00

The Graduate School at the National University of Ireland at Maynooth (County Kildare) "Announces new Doctoral Teaching Scholarships for 2011. This new scholarship programme marks a significant investment by NUI Maynooth in student research, with full fees and a stipend of 16,000 per annum for successful candidates." That's 16,000 Euro, equivalent to about $22,000. Departments participating include Law.

Conservative and Libertarian Legal Scholarship: An Annotated Bibliography

2011-05-06T14:17:00.000-05:00

Originally prepared by Roger Clegg, Michael E. DeBow, and John McGinnis and and published by the Federalist Society in 1996, it was updated in April 2011 and is available in html and pdf

Richard Esenberg 'By Any Means Necessary: Law as Politics By Other Means' May 4, 2011

2011-05-02T12:00:00.000-05:00

Richard Esenberg will speak on "By Any Means Necessary: Law as Politics By Other Means", A Reflection on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, at a Noon luncheon Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway, presented by the Milwaukee Lawyer's Chapter.

Mr. Esenberg is a Visiting Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School, President of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, and publishes the Shark and Shepherd weblog. He has been a and frequent author and presenter for the national Federalist Society, and was a panel member at our chapter's March 11, 2008 event and the featured speaker at our March 26, 2007 event.

Reservations may be made by printing and mailing this form with $20.00 ($15 for students,
teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North
Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before April 29, 2011. Reservations may also be made by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who choose not to attend.

May 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-05-02T09:45:00.003-05:00

Wisconsin Supreme Court

May 3, 2011

9:45 a.m. State v. West (2009AP1579) and State v. Nordberg (2010AP1142)

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

May 11, 2011 at Dist. IV, S.Ct. Hearing Room, 2d Floor East Wing, State Capitol, Madison

10:00 a.m. State v. Rowan (2010AP1398-CR)

May 24, 2011 at Dist. I, 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400, Milwaukee

10:00 a.m. Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc. (2009AP1212) and (2010AP491)

Epstein on the menace that is the NLRB

2011-04-29T14:57:00.000-05:00

Epstein on taxes.

2011-04-21T16:24:00.002-05:00

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy for Kindle

2011-04-19T12:00:00.002-05:00

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy serves as official law journal of the Federalist Society, and membership in the Society includes a subscription to the print edition of the Journal. The Journal is also available in pdf at its website.

In addition, Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy noted yesterdaythat the Journal "has already announced a Kindle edition, selling for 99 cents an issue." While not yet a seamless process, I have learned that Society members can arrange to substitute the Kindle edition for the print version.

Spotting the issue

2011-04-08T12:55:00.000-05:00

A possible Wisconsin post-of-the-year: Ann Althouse, April 5, 2011, Watching the election results.

UPDATE, 11:43: Dane (Madison's county) is nearly all in. I don't see how Kloppenburg can net more than about 3,000 with what's left of Dane. Waukesha is now shown as completely in, but the numbers didn't change, so I think something may have been misreported. I took the trouble to do a calculation and was going to predict that Prosser would net 40,000 more votes in Waukesha. What happened?

April 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-04-08T09:45:00.003-05:00

April 11, 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court

9:45 a.m. In the matter of petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 10.03(5)(b)1. (09-08) [Bar dues] Public hearing

9:45 a.m. In the matter of amendment of SCR 12.07 Relating to Assessment of Attorneys for the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (10-10) Public Hearing

9:45 a.m. In the matter of amendment of SCR Chapters 70 and 33 relating to administration of municipal courts (10-11) Public hearing

April 13, 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court

9:45 a.m. Lake Beulah Management District v. Department of Natural Resources (2008AP3170) and Lake Beulah Management District v. Village of East Troy (2009AP2021)

1:30 p.m. McReath v. McReath (2009AP639)

April 14, 2011

9:45 a.m. Bushard v. Reisman (2009AP438)

10:45 a.m. State v. Denson (2009AP694-CR)

1:30 p.m. Klemm v. American Transmission Company, LLC (2009AP2784)

April 15, 2011

9:45 a.m. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Barrock (2009AP2917-D)

10:45 a.m. State v. Kandutsch (2009AP1351-CR)

1:30 p.m. Covenant Healthcare System, Inc. v. City of Wauwatosa {2009AP1469) and (2009AP1470)

April 19, 2011

9:45 a.m. Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jennings (2092AP3208-D)

10:45 a.m. State v. Buchanan (2009AP2934-CR)

1:30 p.m. Stupar River LLC v. Town of Linwood Board of Review (2009AP191)

Ralph Kramden Fallacy

2011-04-06T17:37:00.000-05:00

At Shark and Shepherd last week, this post included a collateral discussion of an ad hominem hominem.

John Fund "An End to Wisconsin Nice? Voter Fraud and Voter Anger" April 1, 2011 and March 31

2011-03-28T12:00:00.000-05:00

John Fund, columnist for The Wall Street Journal, will speak on "An End to Wisconsin Nice? Voter Fraud and Voter Anger" at an April 1, 2011 Noon luncheon at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 757 North Broadway, presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter.

For more information on attending, see the reservation form.

Mr. Fund was the featured speaker at our chapter events on October 8, 2008 and January 26, 2001.

Update: The Madison Lawyers Chapter will also present Mr. Fund speaking on the same topic, Thursday, March 31, 2011, ~~5:00–6:30 p.m.~~ 5:30-7:00 p.m., in the Lake Dining Room of the Madison Club, 5 East Wilson Street, Madison, Wisconsin. The cost is $20.00, which includes hors d’oeuvres and two drinks. For the Madison event, RSVP by Monday, March 28th to Andrew Cook by email or by telephone (608) 219-4632.

Substantive Due Process

2011-03-24T10:18:00.001-05:00

New article in the Yale Law Review on substantive due process.

Mandatest destiny

2011-03-20T15:17:00.000-05:00

In a letter to the editor in the April 7, 2011 issue of The New York Review of Books, Professor Francis Barry McCarthy of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law defends the constitutionality of the individual mandate by analogy, concluding,

It would be a very odd body of constitutional law if the federal government could make a person act by serving in the military, perhaps at the cost of his life, but be unable to make him do something that affects interstate commerce by simply requiring him to purchase health insurance.

View from across the water

2011-03-11T18:27:00.000-06:00

David Dayen at the FDL* News Desk (Wednesday 4:54pm) on "potential implications" of the State Senate's vote that day on the collective bargaining bill, including the

Supreme Court fight. The matchup between David Prosser (R) and JoAnn Kloppenberg (D) for the state Supreme Court on April 5 just got very interesting. It’s a statewide vote, and the balance of power on the state Supreme Court is at stake. Right now there are 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the court, but one of those Republicans is Prosser. Expect lots of organizing and millions of dollars poured into this election, which is much like a political election, with debates and everything. If Democrats win, the legality of what took place tonight may be put in greater question.

(via KausFiles)

*FireDogLake, not Fond du lac

Super Quorums under the Wisconsin Constitution

2011-03-03T17:37:00.001-06:00

By James Lindgren of the Northwestern University - School of Law, at SSRN. From the Abstract:

The Wisconsin attorney general in 1971 gave a formal opinion to the legislature that a bill that changed collective bargaining rights substantially was not fiscal in nature and was not subject to the three-fifths super quorum provision. Because collective bargaining rights and that very statutory chapter (ch. 111) are at the heart of the proposed Senate Bill 11, the most controversial portions of the bill could be passed constitutionally with just a simple majority of elected members present, without a three-fifths quorum.

(via InstaPundit)

March 2011 arguments

2011-02-28T09:45:00.021-06:00

Supreme Court unless otherwise indicated, see Oral Argument Assignment for the Month of March 2011

March 1, 2011

9:45 a.m. Madison Metro. School District v. Circuit Court for Dane County (2009AP2845-W)

10:45 a.m. Steffens v. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois (2009AP1558)

1:30 p.m. Topolski v. Topolski (2009AP2433-FT)

March 2, 2011

9:45 a.m. Siebert v. Wisconsin American Mut. Ins. Co. (2009AP1422)

10:45 a.m. BNP Paribas v. Olsen's Mill, Inc. (2009AP1007)

1:30 p.m. Affeldt v. Green Lake County (2009AP2315)

March 8, 2011

9:45 a.m. State v. Lamar (2008AP2206-CR)

1:30 p.m. State v. Gonzalez (2009AP1249-CR)

March 9, 2011

1:30 p.m. State v. St. Martin (2009AP1209-CR)

March 10, 2011

9:30 a.m. State v. Hansbrough (2010AP369-CR) Court of Appeals Dist. II, 2727 North Grandview Blvd., Waukesha

March 22, 2011

9:30 a.m. Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (2007AP221 and 2007AP1440) Court of Appeals Dist. I, 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400, Milwaukee

10:00 a.m. Coralic v. City of Milwaukee (2010AP956) Court of Appeals Dist. IV, S.Ct. Hearing Room, 2d Floor East Wing, State Capitol, Madison

Eminent Domain Abuse

2011-02-21T10:27:00.001-06:00

Free Trade and Liberty of Contract

2011-02-14T09:27:00.000-06:00

Reason Q&A with David Mayer

2011-02-10T10:06:00.001-06:00

Reason Q&A with Richard Epstein

2011-02-04T16:04:00.001-06:00

The Constitutionality of the Federal Health Care Law (video/audio)

2011-02-02T06:00:00.002-06:00

At Wisconsin Eye

On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 at the Madison Club, the Madison Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies held a forum on the new federal health care laws, specifically, whether they are constitutional. Panelists were Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, George Mason University School of Law professor Ilya Somin, and Wisconsin State Representative Jon Richards.

Supreme Court's divisions get messy public airing

2011-02-01T09:30:00.001-06:00

Patrick Marley reports in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on yesterday's open administrative conference at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

P.S. State Supreme Court justices agree little, trade personal attacks during public meeting, by Dee J. Hall at The Capital Times

An Originalist Congress?

2011-02-01T06:00:00.001-06:00

Joel Alicea at National Affairs

February 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-01-31T09:45:00.075-06:00

Supreme Court unless otherwise indicated

Oral Argument Assignment for the Month of February 2011

February 1, 2011

9:45 a.m. State v. Funk (2008AP2765-CR)

10:45 a.m. State v. Harbor (2009AP1252-CR)

February 2, 2011

9:45 a.m. State v. Burris (2009AP956-CR)

10:45 a.m. Emjay Investment Company v. Village of Germantown (2009AP1714)

1:30 p.m. E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. County of Oneida (2009AP775)

February 3, 2011

9:30 a.m. State v. Jackson (2010AP678-CR)
Court of Appeals Dist. II, 2727 North Grandview Blvd., Waukesha

9:45 a.m. State v. Rhodes (2009AP25-CR)

10:45 a.m. Polsky v. Virnich (2007AP203)

1:30 p.m. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eisenberg (2009AP996-D)

Petitions scheduled for public hearing/open administrative conference

February 4, 2011

Court funds dispute set to spill into public arena

February 16, 2011

10:00 a.m. State v. Peralta (2010AP563-CR and 2010AP1334-CR)
Court of Appeals Dist. I, 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400, Milwaukee

Supreme Court candidates mix it up in forum

2011-01-31T06:00:00.003-06:00

Tom Kertscher reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on last Thursday's judicial candidate forum at the Milwaukee Bar Association.

P.S. Ghosts of previous election haunt Supreme Court choices, by Patti Wenzel at Third Coast Digest

Irving Kristol’s Brute Reason

2011-01-30T06:00:00.007-06:00

Paul Berman reviews The Neoconservative Persuation: Selected Essays, 1942-2009, by Irving Kristol, edited by Gertrude Himmelfarb

Supreme Court funds dispute set to spill into public arena

2011-01-21T10:11:00.001-06:00

Dee J. Hall reports in the Wisconsin State Journal on an addition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court calendar for January 2011.

[Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson announced Thursday that the justices would meet in open session Jan. 31 and Feb. 4 to hash out matters including who gets to decide how the court's money is spent.

(via WisPolitics)

More: Debate over expenditures highlights rift on state high court by Patrick Marley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Cert dissent

2011-01-12T10:35:00.001-06:00

Great dissent by Justice Thomas from the Court's denial of certiorari in a Commerce Clause case.

One Side Now

2011-01-07T06:00:00.005-06:00

Eric A. Posner at The New Republic's The Book weblog reviews The Conservative Assault on the Constitution, by Erwin Chemerinsky.

Chemerinsky largely ignores recent writing by liberals and conservatives who fret that when courts too freely overturn legislation, they stifle public deliberation, infantilize the people, and play a legislative role to which they are not suited. These writings have not won a judicial constituency, but they do express a general uneasiness with “living constitution”-style arguments that courts should constrain democratic decisionmaking on the basis of public values that change with the times.

January 2011 arguments and hearings

2011-01-03T09:45:00.002-06:00

Oral Argument Assignment for the Month of January 2011

January 4, 2011

9:45 a.m. State v. Balliette (2009AP472)

10:45 a.m. State v. Beauchamp (2009AP806-CR)

1:30 p.m. Ottman v. Town of Primrose (2008AP3182)

January 5, 2011

9:45 a.m. State v. Ninham (2008AP1139)

10:45 a.m. Kilian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2009AP538)

1:30 p.m. Rasmussen v. General Motors Corporation (2007AP35)

January 6, 2011

10:00 a.m. DeBoer Transportation, Inc. v. Swenson (2009AP564)

11:00 a.m. Fischer v. Steffen (2009AP1669)

1:30 p.m. Day v. Allstate Indemnity Company (08AP2929)

Petitions scheduled for public hearing/open administrative conference

January 13, 2011

9:30 a.m. In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 40.08 Relating to Adverse Determinations of Bar Applicants’ Character and Fitness (08-11)

9:30 a.m. In the Matter of the Petition to Create Supreme Court Rule 40.075 Relating to Conditional Admission to the Bar (08-13)

First Amendment and First Noel

2010-12-22T12:00:00.001-06:00

At Axley Brynelson LLP

Every December, public schools, cities and other government agencies face the difficult task of acknowledging the various religious and secular holiday traditions celebrated this time of year without running afoul of the First Amendment establishment clause.

In this video, Madison Wisconsin Attorney Sara K. Beachy explains how courts evaluate religious displays under the establishment clause.

Free speech

2010-12-13T11:34:00.000-06:00

Another post on the threat to free speech posed by judicial campaign financing. And the Geto Boys, too.

Power grab

2010-12-06T10:23:00.000-06:00

Milwaukee alderman think they have the right to decide who should and should not be allowed to work.

Engaged justice

2010-12-06T10:22:00.000-06:00

George Will on the Commerce Clause.

Nobel Prizes

2010-12-06T10:18:00.000-06:00

Why its a good thing there is no Nobel Prize in Law.

Free Speech

2010-11-29T12:58:00.001-06:00

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Arizona's patently unconstitutional matching funds law. Should reason prevail, Wisconsin's similar law will go down in flames, too.

December 2010 Arguments and Hearings

2010-11-24T12:00:00.001-06:00

Wisconsin Supreme Court unless otherwise indicated

December 1, 2010

9:45 a.m. Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B. (2010AP321) -

10:45 a.m. Boerst v. Henn (2009AP1559)

1:30 p.m.
Casper v. American International South Ins. Co. {2006AP1229)
Casper v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. {2006AP2512)
Casper, et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. (2007AP369)

December 7, 2010

2:00 p.m. Wisconsin Court of Appeals Dist. I
Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC v. Generac Power
Systems, Inc. (2010AP344)

December 21, 2010

1:00 p.m. Wisconsin Court of Appeals District III
Wadzinski v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (2009AP2752)

Jason Adkins "Unhappy Days for Milwaukee Entrepreneurs" December 2, 2010

2010-11-20T09:30:00.003-06:00

Institute for Justice
photo

The Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society is pleased to announce the next upcoming luncheon will feature Jason Adkins of The Institute for Justice, on December 2, 2010 at Noon at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway.

Reservations may be made by printing and mailing this form with $20.00 ($15 for students, teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before November 30, 2010. Reservations may also be made by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who choose not to attend.

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is one of the nation’s leading legal advocates for the rights of small businesses and entrepreneurs against unreasonable government regulations.

To illustrate the difficulties entrepreneurs face, as well the types of cases IJ litigates, its attorneys have authored a series of eight reports chronicling the barriers and red tape local governments put in the way of aspiring business owners and entrepreneurs. One of the cities IJ profiles is Milwaukee, and Jason Adkins, the author of the report Unhappy Days for Milwaukee Entrepreneurs: Brew City Regulations Make it Hard for Business to Achieve the High Life, will discuss how the city makes life difficult for small businesses and why city leaders need to undergo a paradigm shift in how they think about the role of small businesses in the health of the Milwaukee region’s economy.

He will also discuss what courts can and should do to protect businesses from unreasonable and arbitrary regulations.

IJ’s city study reports have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Fox Business Channel, and the Milwaukee study has been discussed on the local op-ed pages and talk radio, such as in the Wisconsin Law Journal and on Midday with Charlie Sykes.

Jason Adkins is a staff attorney at the Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter. He is a board member of the Federalist Society Minnesota Lawyers Division and a former law clerk for Chief Judge Edith H. Jones of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

2010-2011 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

2010-11-19T08:45:00.001-06:00

November 19, 2010
Phillips v. U.S. Bank Nat'l. Assn., 2010 WI 131
Opinion Per Curiam. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed by an equally divided court. Abrahamson, Bradley, and Crooks would affirm. Prosser, Roggensack, and Gableman would reverse. Ziegler did not participate.

Oral Argument December 2010, January 2011, February 2011, and March 2011
Pending Cases (updated October 14, 2010)
Pending Rules Petitions scheduled - tentatively scheduled - not scheduled.

November 17, 2010
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2010 WI 130
Opinion by Crooks for a unanimous court. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

November 10, 2010
In the matter of amendment of Wis. Stat. 802.10, 804.01, 804.08, 804.09, 804.12, and 805.07, 2010 WI 129.
Order Per Curiam: Petition granted, effective January 1, 2011. Bradley dissents, joined by Abrahamson.

November 5, 2010
In the matter the amendment of Supreme Court Rule 71.01, regarding required court reporting, and Wis. Stat. s. 885.42, videotape procedure, 2010 WI 128
Order Per Curiam: petition granted, effective January 1, 2011.

November 5, 2010
In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15(e)(2)a., relating to trust account insurance and safety requirements, 2010 WI 127
Order Per Curiam: petition granted, effective January 1, 2011.

November 4, 2010
In the matter of the petition to amend or repeal Supreme Court Rule 40.03, Diploma Privilege, 2010 WI 126
Order Per Curiam: petition denied. Abrahamson concurs, joined by Bradley and Crooks.

November 2, 2010
Case Disposition of Petitions, 2010 WI 125
Table: Decided September 1, 2010 to October 31, 2010

November 3, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Elliott, 2010 WI 124
Opinion Per Curiam: Revoked.

October 21, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Torvinen, 2010 WI 123
Opinion Per Curiam: Dismissed.

October 14, 2010
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI 122
Opinion Per Curiam: The court being equally divided (Prosser, Roggensack, and Gableman would affirm; Abrahamson, Bradley, Crooks would reverse; Ziegler did not participate), certification dismissed and remanded to the Court of Appeals.

October 14, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joan A. Kessler, 2010 WI 121
Opinion Per Curiam: Dismissed.

October 14, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Frederick P. Kessler, 2010 WI 120
Opinion Per Curiam: Dismissed.
October 6, 2010
In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rules 12.02(6) and 12.03(7) concerning the Lawyers Assistance Corporation, 2010 WI 119
Order Per Curiam: Supreme Court Rules 12.02(6) and 12.03(7) are amended.

October 6, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kramer 2010 WI 118
Order Per Curiam: revoked.

September 30, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. LeSieur, 2010 WI 117
Order Per Curiam: Public reprimand. Bradley dissents.

September 30, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. George, 2010 WI 116
Order Per Curiam: Reinstated. Prosser did not participate.

September 22, 2010
Justice's Task Force on Criminal Justice and Mental Health issues report

September 17, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peiss, 2010 WI 115
Opinion Per Curiam: suspended one year.

September 17, 2010
Chief Justice Heffernan's portrait presented to Wisconsin Supreme Court

September 8, 2010
Case Disposition of Petitions, 2010 WI 114
Table: Decided July 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010

September 10, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mularski, 2010 WI 113
Opinion Per Curiam: revoked.

September 8, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Compton, 2010 WI 112
Opinion Per Curiam: suspended two years.

September 2, 2010
Case Disposition of Petitions, 2010 WI 111
Table: Decided May 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010

September 2, 2010
Case Disposition of Petitions, 2010 WI 110
Table: Decided March 1, 2010 to April 30, 2010

September 3, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Coplien, 2010 WI 109
Opinion Per Curiam: suspended six months.

September 1, 2010
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lister, 2010 WI 108
Opinion Per Curiam: suspended 90 days.

2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Justice Prosser announces reelection campaign for Supreme Court

2010-11-10T13:23:00.002-06:00

Press release at WisPolitics

I am a blasphemer and a heretic.

2010-11-08T10:04:00.000-06:00

At least to the Progressive religion that steals taxpayer dollars for public radio.

Obi-Wan Stevens vs. Darth Rehnquist

2010-11-05T12:00:00.000-05:00

Ross E. Davies on A Clerical Fantasy, at The Green Bag

November 2010 arguments and hearings

2010-11-05T10:00:00.001-05:00

Wisconsin Supreme Court unless otherwise indicated

November 2, 2010

9:45 a.m. State v. Marinez (2009AP567-CR)

10:45 a.m. Phillips v. U.S. Bank National Association (2009AP246)

November 3, 2010

9:45 a.m. State v. Burns (2009AP118-CR)

10:45 a.m. Andersen v. Department of Natural Resources (2008AP3235)

1:30 p.m. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sommers (2006AP2851-D

November 5, 2010

9:30 a.m. Public Hearing In the Matter of the Petition for Amendment of Trust Account Insurance and Safety Requirements (10-05)

9:30 a.m. Public Hearing In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15(e)(2)a., relating to trust account insurance and safety requirements (10-06)

November 9, 2010 Wisconsin Supreme Court reschedules hearings after threat forces evacuation

9:30 a.m Public Hearing re In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 81.02, Compensation of court appointed counsel (10-03)

9:30 a.m Public Hearing re In the matter of the petition to amend Supreme Court Rules 21.16, 22.19, and 22.29, establishing standards and procedure for permanent revocation (10-04)

November 10, 2010 at Court of Appeals, Dist. I, 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400, Milwaukee

10:00 a.m. U.S. Oil Co., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (2009AP2260)

1:30 p.m. Orlowski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2009AP2848)

The State of Conservatism

2010-11-05T06:00:00.003-05:00

Christopher Caldwell's recent review essay in The New York Times includes this on The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It, by Angelo M. Codevilla.

Self-government is difficult and time-consuming. If it weren’t, everyone would have it. The “light” social democratic rule that has prevailed for the past 80 years has taken a lot of the burdens of self-government off the shoulders of citizens. They were probably glad to be rid of them. Now, apparently, they are changing their minds.

Superstatutes

2010-11-04T06:00:00.003-05:00

Adrian Vermeule reviews A Republic of Statutes: The New American Constitution, by William N. Eskridge, Jr. and John Ferejohn, in The Book at The New Republic.

Nation-Building

2010-11-03T06:00:00.002-05:00

Richard Brookhiser reviews Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, by Pauline Maier, in , in The New York Times.

The ratification process was a tribute to what Nathan Dane of Massachusetts, a reluctant convert to the Constitution, called “the attention of this intelligent people.” Elites who disdain or ignore their fellow citizens come to grief.

Voter intimidation

2010-11-01T10:07:00.002-05:00

Some special interest groups apparently think their fellow citizens aren't bright enough to know whether they can vote legally or not.

Court rebukes OLR, praises attorney

2010-10-29T14:01:00.001-05:00

David Ziemer reports in the Wisconsin Law Journal on Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Torvinen, 2010 WI 123.

Christian Adams "Redistricting: Where Do We Draw the Line?" November 9, 2010 at U Wisconsin

2010-10-27T18:00:00.008-05:00

The University of Wisconsin Student Chapter presents Christian Adams who will speak on "Redistricting: Where Do We Draw the Line?" November 9, 2010 Time Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:00 p.m. at the Law School.

The results of the 2010 Census indicate changes are coming to the nation's legislative districts. The 2010 election will determine who gets to make the decisions about where district lines will lie for the next 10 years.

J. Christian Adams served in the Voting Section at the United States Department of Justice where he brought cases involving redistricting, military voting protections and voter intimidation cases, including one against the New Black Panther Party.

He also successfully investigated and litigated the Section 2 case United States v. Ike Brown, 494 F. Supp. 2d 440 (S.D.Miss. 2007), which was the first lawsuit brought under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on behalf of a discriminated-against white minority, thereby expanding the protections of this civil rights law to all Americans.

He is also a contributing columnist covering elections and the Justice Department at Pajamas Media.com. He has discussed election law issues on Fox News, CNN, NBC, CBS and has published in the Washington Examiner and Washington Times. He is a frequent radio talk show guest and has appeared on Fox News, CNN, NPR, CBS and NBC to discuss election issues.

Refreshments will be served. RSVP by email to reserve a seat and receive location information.

The First Thing We Do ...

2010-10-27T06:00:00.003-05:00

Stephen B. Presser reviews Unrestrained: Judicial Excess and the Mind of the American Lawyer, by Robert F. Nagel, in The University Bookman, Winter 2010.

By our use of the case method and our Socratic style of legal education, Nagel argues, we law professors teach our students to believe two somewhat contradictory things—that judges’ personal preferences inevitably influence cases, but that personal idiosyncrasy can be reduced to acceptable levels because judges are constrained by a need to follow previous historical precedents and decide cases only with reference to the arguments of counsel and the relevant texts of Constitution, statutes, and regulations. This, Nagel claims, breeds judges (all of whom are lawyers) who speak an esoteric language, and who become convinced of the moral clarity of their reasoning and the infallibility of their judgment, to such an extent that they are compelled to dictate the solutions to our most contentious social, cultural, and political issues.

Mr. Nagel was the featured speaker at the Milwaukee Chapter's June 27, 2002 event.

Epstein on conflicts of interest and the FDA

2010-10-26T16:34:00.001-05:00

Public defender official announces Supreme Court bid

2010-10-26T12:00:00.001-05:00

Steve Elbow reports at The Capital Times on Marla Stephens announcing her candidacy for the Wisconsin Supreme Court seat held by Justice David Prosser.

(via Illusory Tenant)

The Originalist Who Came In From The Cold

2010-10-26T06:00:00.000-05:00

The Originalist Who Came In From The Cold: A Response to Professor Josh Chafetz’s Impeachment & Assassination, by Seth Barrett Tillman, is available for download at the SSRN Working Papers Series. Per the Abstract.

This article is a short response to Professor Josh Chafetz's "Impeachment & Assassination," 95 Minn. L. Rev. (forthcoming Nov. 2010).

According to Professor Josh Chafetz, “impeachment maintains the link between removal and death, but attenuates it…Impeachment is…a political death - a President who is impeached and convicted is deprived of his continued existence as a political officeholder. And, like death, impeachment and conviction may be permanent.” In this short response, it is my purpose to show that Chafetz’s proposed metaphor does not work and, indeed, that inferences drawn from this metaphor lead Chafetz far afield from the Constitution’s original public meaning.

Institute for Justice

2010-10-25T15:08:00.000-05:00

New report on how city and state restrictions on liberty of contract make it impossible to do business in Milwaukee.

Admissions in treatment can’t be used after revocation

2010-10-25T14:40:00.000-05:00

David Ziemer reports at Wisconsin Law Journal on State v. Peebles (2009AP3111-CR)

Court extends rule for tribal transfers

2010-10-25T12:30:00.004-05:00

Jack Zemlicka reports at Wisconsin Law Journal on the Wisconsin Supreme Courts's October 18, 2010 review of In the matter of the petition to create a rule governing the discretionary transfer of cases to tribal court, 2008 WI 114 (07-11 ) and 2009 WI 63 (07-11A).

No punitive damages under UFTA

2010-10-25T12:15:00.001-05:00

David Ziemer reports at Wisconsin Law Journal on C & A Investments v. Kelly (2009AP2420)

Bradley Smith on 'Citizens United'

2010-10-25T12:00:00.009-05:00

Video of a discussion with Prof. Bradley Smith in connection with his appearance at the October 12, 2010 panel discussion on "Citizens United: The Future of Campaign Finance and Political Speech" (via MacIver Institute)

A Kalal for the Wisconsin Constitution

2010-10-25T06:00:00.001-05:00

By Daniel Suhr, available for download at the SSRN Working Papers Series. Per the Abstract

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court interprets state statutes, it follows a methodology first set in State ex rel. Kalal v. Dane County Circuit Court [2004 WI 58] (2004) [opinion]. This method focuses primarily on the text of the statute, and circumscribes reference to legislative history and other secondary sources.

Yet when the Wisconsin Supreme Court interprets the state constitution, it follows a different methodology, first set in Buse v. Smith (1976). This method looks at text, legislative and popular history, and contemporaneous legislative enactments. For amendments to the state constitution, legislative and popular history covers two sessions of the Legislature and the statewide discussion of the amendment in advance of its ratification by the people at the polls.

In the first half of this paper, I outline the Court's interpretation of the state constitution through history, both from 1848 to 1976 and 1976 to present. In the second half, I critique the Court's current method, and decide that it is an unreliable guide for judicial interpretation of the state constitution. Additionally, I suggest that Kalal advanced certain rule of law values which make its method preferable. Thus, I conclude by recommending that the Court adopt the methodology of Kalal for interpreting both statutes and the state constitution.

Andrew Cook, Brown Bag O’ Justice Lunch, October 27, 2010

2010-10-22T12:00:00.000-05:00

The University of Wisconsin Law Student Chapter presents Attorney Andrew Cook October 27, 2010 at Noon, as part of its Brown Bag O’ Justice Lunch Series. Mr. Cooks works for The Hamilton Consulting Group and is on the board of directors for the Madison Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. Space at this event is limited, so RSVP by email as soon as possible to reserve a seat and receive location information.

Carrie Severino "Advice and Consent in Theory and Practice" October 21, 2010

2010-10-21T12:00:00.000-05:00

Judicial Crisis Network
photo

Carrie Severino will speak on "Advice and Consent in Theory and Practice" October 21, 2010 at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway, at a luncheon presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.

Ms. Severino is Chief Counsel and Policy Director of the Judicial Crisis Network. In that capacity she has briefed Senators and Congressmen on judicial nominations, appeared on MSNBC, FOX, and C-SPAN, and regularly speaks and writes on judicial issues, particularly the Kagan nomination, the federal nomination process, and state judicial selection.

Reservations may be made by printing and mailing this form with $20.00 ($15 for students, teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before October 18, 2010. Reservations may also be made by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who reserve but not to attend.

Punitive damages not available under Wisconsin’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act

2010-10-21T06:00:00.001-05:00

Joe Forward reports at the State Bar of Wisconsin on C & A Investments v. Kelly (2009AP2420)

Tibor Machan "The Myth of Animal Rights" October 21, 2010 at U Wisconsin

2010-10-20T18:00:00.000-05:00

The University of Wisconsin Law Student Chapter presents Prof. Tibor R. Machan on Thursday, October 21, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 3253 of the Law School. Prof. Machan is R.C. Hoiles Professor, Business Ethics & Free Enterprise, Chapman University, and will discuss whether animal rights exist.

Dinner will be provided. For more information, email the Chapter.

Use at sentencing after revocation of incriminating statements made during counseling ordered as a condition of probation is compelled self-incrimination

2010-10-20T15:00:00.002-05:00

Wisconsin State Public Defender reports at On Point on State v. Peebles (2009AP3111-CR)

Insurer can contest coverage issue

2010-10-20T11:45:00.001-05:00

David Ziemer reports at Wisconsin Law Journal on Zarnstorff v. Neenah Creek Custom Trucking (2009AP1321)

Esenberg-Fallone Debate, Four Cases from Last SCOTUS Term, October 19, 2010

2010-10-13T09:28:00.001-05:00

Tuesday, October 19th, the Marquette Student Chapter of the Federalist Society, along with its American Constitution Society counterpart, hosts a debate by Professors Richard Esenberg and Edward Fallone on four U.S. Supreme Court cases decided last term:

Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 - religious symbols on government property

Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 - enforceability of arbitration agreements

Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 - sentencing juveniles to life in prison

Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 - effective assistance of counsel

The debate begins at Noon in Room 444, Eckstein Hall. There is no charge and lunch (by Buca di Beppo) will be provided.

APPI Conference “The Concept of Social Justice” November 12-13, 2010

2010-10-12T15:15:00.005-05:00

The American Public Philosophy Institute will hold a conference on “The Concept of Social Justice” November 12-13, 2010 at Marquette University, Cudahy Hall 001. The conference has been organized by Christopher Wolfe of APPI and the Thomas International Center, who also serves as a member of the advisory board of the Milwaukee Chapter of the Federalist Society.

Friday, Nov 12:

Panel One 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Paper: “Justice over Charity: Some Dangers in Faith-Based Poverty Initiatives” Samuel Fleischacker, University of Illinois at Chicago
Respondent: Robert Vischer, University of St. Thomas Law School

Panel Two 2:45 to 4:15 p.m.
Paper: “Is Social Justice an Empty Abstraction?” Jean Bethke Elshtain, University of Chicago
Respondent: Michael Fleet, Marquette University

Panel Three 4:30 to 6:00 p.m.
Paper: “The Search for Universal Ethics: the Church, Natural Law, and Social Justice” Joseph Koterski, S.J., Fordham University
Respondent: Kevin Hector, University of Chicago Divinity School

Saturday, Nov 13:

Panel Four 9:30 to 11:00 a.m.
Paper: “All Justice is Social – But It’s Not All Social Justice” Nicholas Wolterstorff, Yale University
Respondent: Ryan Hanley, Marquette University

Panel Five 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Paper: “The Church’s Best Contribution to the Political and Social Order” J. Brian Benestad, University of Scranton
Respondent: Patrick Carey, Marquette University

Panel Six 3:00 to 4:30 p.m.
Paper: “The Origins of the Concept of ‘Social Justice’: Rectifying a Misunderstanding of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on Justice” John Finnis, University of Notre Dame Law School and Oxford University

There is no charge to attend.

No Merleau-Ponty

2010-10-12T09:30:00.002-05:00

Eric Kleefeld reports at Talking Points Memo, Who Is John Galt? The New Star Of Wisconsin Senate Race Debate!

Protectionism

2010-10-11T15:34:00.001-05:00

Great blog post about economic liberty.

Coulter update

2010-10-11T12:00:00.011-05:00

For any New York Times readers who don't read Ann Coulter's column, Laura M. Holson provides one perspective on what Coulter's been up to lately in the Fashion & Style section of Sunday's edition.

October 2010 arguments and hearings

2010-10-01T08:45:00.002-05:00

Wisconsin Supreme Court unless otherwise indicated

October 1, 2010 (West Bend)

9:30 a.m. Tammy W-G. v. Jacob T. (2009AP2973

11:00 a.m. Dawson v. Town of Jackson (2009AP120)

2:00 p.m. Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (2009AP1874-AC)

October 4, 2010 9:45 a.m.

Court review of order dated May 1, 2006, In the Matter of the Petition for Amendment to Supreme Court Rule 22.24 relating to Cost Assessments in the Lawyer Regulation System (05-01)

Administrative Conference (Public Hearing held 02/24/10), In the Matter of the Petition of the State Bar of Wisconsin to modify Chapter 72 of the Supreme Court Rules (Expungement of Records) (09-07)

In the Matter of the Petition to Amend SCR 12.02(6) and SCR 12.03(7) concerning the Lawyers Assistance Corporation [Filed 6/29/2010] (10-07)

October 6, 2010

9:45 a.m. Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condominium Assn., Inc. (2009AP688)

10:45 a.m. Link Snacks, Inc. v. Link (2008AP2897)

1:30 p.m. State v. Conner (2008AP1296-CR)

October 7, 2010

9:45 a.m. Tews v. NHI, LLC (2009AP828)

10:45 a.m. Werner v. Hendree (2008AP2045)

1:30 p.m. Metropolitan Associates v. City of Milwaukee (2009AP524)

October 18, 2010 9:45 a.m.

Review of orders dated July 31, 2008 and July 1, 2009, In the Matter of the Petition to create a rule governing the discretionary transfer of cases to tribal court (07-11)

October 19, 2010 9:30 a.m.

In the Matter of Amendment of Supreme Court Rule 81.02, Compensation of Attorneys Appointed by the Court [Filed 3/5/2010] (10-03)

In the Matter of the Petition for Establishment of Standards and Procedures for Permanent Revocation [Filed 3/16/2010] (10-04)

October 12, 2010 "'Citizens United': The Future of Campaign Finance and Political Speech" panel at Madison Chapter

2010-09-30T11:20:00.001-05:00

The Madison, Wisconsin, Lawyers Chapter of The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy, and the MacIver Institute, present: "Citizens United: The Future of Campaign Finance and Political Speech", Tuesday, October 12, 2010 12:00 Noon, in the Terrace Room of the Madison Club, 5 East Wilson Street, Madison, Wisconsin.

The panel includes:

Prof. Bradley Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law, Capital University Law School, and Former Federal Elections Commissioner

Lester Pines, Senior Partner, Cullen Weston Pines & Bach, LLP, and Adjunct Professor, UW Law School

Prof. John Coleman, Chair, Political Science Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The cost is $15.00, which includes lunch. CLE credit is pending. Please RSVP by Friday, October 8 to Andrew Cook by email or telephone (608) 219-4632. For more information see the print notice.

Engage September 2010

2010-09-23T06:00:00.004-05:00

The latest issue is up at the national Federalist Society website

Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community.

Obamacare

2010-09-22T14:06:00.001-05:00

Prof. Randy Barnett's article in the NYU Journal of Law and Public Policy, on why the individual health mandate is unconstitutional, is now available.

Who’s afraid of the Restatement (Third) of Torts?

2010-09-22T06:00:00.000-05:00

Heather M. Bessinger and Nathaniel Cade, Jr. at the Wisconsin Law Journal

State Court Docket Watch Summer 2010

2010-09-21T06:00:00.000-05:00

The latest issue is up at the national Federalist Society website.

... This special edition includes the thoughts of four experts on a panel hosted by the Federalist Society in May 2010 on California 17200, an initiative adopted in California in 2004 that restricts private lawsuits against a company only to those where an individual is actually injured by and suffers a financial loss due to an unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practice. ...

Paul Clement "Supreme Court Review" September 20, 2010

2010-09-18T12:00:00.000-05:00

Paul D. Clement
(King & Spalding photo)

Paul Clement will present a review of the most recent term of the United States Supreme Court at this year's Constitution Day celebration luncheon, Monday, September 20, 2010, 12 o’clock Noon, at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway.

Mr. Clement is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of King & Spalding, and head of the firm’s national appellate practice. He is a former Solicitor General of the United States.

Reservations may be made by returning sending the registration with $20.00 ($15 for students,teachers, judges and clergy) to: Federalist Society, c/o Daniel Kelly, Suite 1700, 1000 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, for receipt on or before September 13, 2010. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who register but do not attend.

Mr. Clement has been our chapter's most-often-featured speaker, presenting a Supreme Court review at our September 8, 2008, September 17, 2007, September 25, 2006, September 13, 2005, September 16, 2004, and May 9, 2002 events. He also was a panelist at the February 23, 2006 Rehnquist retrospective.

Presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter.

Shark at the Capitol

2010-09-17T14:00:00.002-05:00

Rick Esenberg at Shark and Shepherd on yesterday's hearing of the Wisconsin Legislature's Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal.