March 17, 2011

Politicizing the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

At the Capitol on Tuesday, I spoke with this young woman. (I didn't get her name, and she didn't get mine — or know I am a law professor.) The conversation went on for 25 minutes, and this is the part about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. As I've been blogging — click the Wisconsin Supreme Court tag — the Wisconsin protesters have been pushing JoAnne Kloppenburg, who is challenging the incumbent, David Prosser. It's very hard to push a Supreme Court candidate in pursuit of a political cause because you undermine the very argument you need to make: That she is properly judicial. I think I'm being properly professorial as I attempt to inspire this insight in my interlocutor.

145 comments:

garage mahal said...

Koch/Rove spent nearly $600,000 on Prosser's primary campaign. And they're currently carpet bombing the state again with ads. I'm sure it's due to their belief that Prosser is a strict constitutionalist textualist blah blah fucking blah blah though. Because conservatives are so principled that way ya'll!

mesquito said...

This little bimbo has no interest in the law, or in the Wisconsin constitition, or in due process. (Judges prosecute people?), or in democratic processes. She sees herself as a supporting player in an epic melodrama starring History, Progress, and Justice.

Marilee said...

She's what, 18?? She doesn't know what she doesn't know.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Not one shot of the boots in action?

S said...

That's not the same young lady who was wearing the boots everyone was talking about the other day, is it? She looks pretty similar.

David said...

Next up. Video of a lioness playing with house kittens.

David said...

Koch/Rove spent nearly $600,000

Koch and Rove got married? Now that's news!

lucid said...

But isn't it obvious that different judges lean different ways?

So who is more realistic here, and who is more tendentious?

chickelit said...

What an utterly despicable position of hers: to deliberately seek to undo one branch of government with another. This is well beyond partisan support for SCOTUS nominees which at least is one step removed from general election.

There is clearly something underfoot here…a certain "will to power" or a “to the death” determination.

Kloppenburg needs to immediately distance herself from these loonies who clearly all belong in Mendota!

Seven Machos said...

DOLT: "I'm not totally versed in the judicial system."

ALTHOUSE: "I kinda am."

MeTooThenMail said...

Professor

A bit off topic - an indulgence.

You are no doubt exceedingly smart, talented, accomplished, and yes, in this video you show your professorial skills show well indeed.

(As above, Lioness plays with kittens.)

The blog is so good, so often - but the trolls are so tedious, so utterly flaccid and redundant - at what point do you think enough is enough?

In other words, in the worlds of FDL and other bastions of liberal newspeak or Journolist (or whatever they call it today) dissent is cause for banning.

Here, the trolls go on, and on, and on, and on, and on...

For a while I stopped reading the blog, only to return during the Walker-Union tussle. To your credit, this is the best the blog has ever been.

Could you do a little clean up in the comments?

Or not.

In any case - the video was great.
Your students are fortunate.

Just sayin'.

LarsPorsena said...

"But isn't it obvious that different judges lean different ways?.."

Leaners only count in horseshoes.

ricpic said...

...the cause of the people...

Let's not think. Let's not ever let thinking get in the way of an orgasmic fantasy. Cross this creature, just once, and you get the missive sent to MeadeHouse.

chickelit said...

Koch Konspiracy alert at 3 min 54 s mark.

I sure hope the Kochs aren't Jewish because this whole scenario is starting to look familiar.

Seven Machos said...

No banning, please. There are plenty of echo chambers on the Internet. They are boring as fuck.

Took me a long time to be convinced of this position. By Althouse.

Seven Machos said...

Garage -- Are there any ads for the opponent? Are there ever ads for anyone you want to see in political office? Do those ads cost money? Who funds them?

granmary said...

She keeps saying "they" broke the law by not doing what the people want. Does she realize that the people voted for what they wanted in Nov? Or does she mean only the people who think as she does?If this is the typical college student's level of knowledge of the law and the political system, then we are really up the proverbial creek.

Carol_Herman said...

It's April 5th. And, can't people ask for an absentee ballot?

You know I get (because I signed up for it many years ago), an automatic absentee ballot.

Usually turnout for these elections is lower than for the others. But what happens when people get angry?

Prosser came in, in the primary, with twice as many votes to Klopperberg. Or, whatever he name is.

You know, I remember the election that got Bird tossed off the bench. Heck, I think she was Governor Moonbeam's chauffeur, before he put her ON the bench.

Yeah. Meg Whitman LOST. And, Governor Moonbeam is back.

But I do know to look on April 6th, to see what happens in Wisconsin.

Gosh, what if the April 5th election will be like "crossing the picket line" used to be ... when the unions lost clout. And, people went into the stores to shop, anyway.

ambisinistral said...

But isn't it obvious that different judges lean different ways? So who is more realistic here, and who is more tendentious?

Lucid,

But Judges having opinions is not really the point. Yes they have opinions, but they -- unlike a jury mermber -- don't have judicial nullification.

They can't willy-nilly throw out laws because they, like the young lady in the video, don't like the result of a legislative vote.

They can only throw them out on procedural or constitutional reasons; nor should they torture procedural rules or constitutional interpretation to get the result they're looking for.

That's the point of looking for their judicial temperament rather then their political leanings in selecting judges. You want somebody who fairly interprets the law rather than another partisan fighter in the trenches.

That's the point the young lady was missing.

Seven Machos said...

Yeah, I wished Althouse would ask how the legislature broke the law. I imagine she didn't want to get into a discussion about whatever nits the left is picking about the way the law was passed.

The Crack Emcee said...

Aside from the fact she's a liberal fascist, my only thought - which lasted from the beginning of the video until the end - is:

Damn, she talks fast!

Probably too fast to think, even.

edutcher said...

garage wants to ignore what Professor Jacboson calls, "the national unions pouring substantial funds and efforts into recalling Republican Senators and eventually Gov. Scott Walker.".

It only applies going one way.

There's also some thoughts on the idea that Republicans may not be in as bad shape as some want to believe.

G Joubert said...

As much as we wish they weren't, judicial positions like all public offices are inherently political. And it doesn't matter whether they are elected or appointed.

Paul said...

She keeps talking about "the people". I guess Republicans don't count as "people" to these little snots. Apparently those Republicans who were overwhelmingly elected in 2010 weren't voted into office by real "people".

chickelit said...

Yeah. Meg Whitman LOST. And, Governor Moonbeam is back.

And that was not the outcome I voted for. So should my first instinct be to go after some California Supreme Court judge to out of grudge? ["judge grudge" has a nice ring to it. -ed.].

I'm beginning to think that there is some nefarious strategy at play here. I realize that that may sound conspiratorial, but I find it highly implausible that this young lady and a thousand other grudge mahals suddenly got the bright idea to bring down Prosser without being coached.

Smilin' Jack said...

Nobody outside a law school gives a damn if a judge is "properly judicial," whatever that even means. We only care about the result: can I carry a gun or not? Do I have to buy health insurance or not? Is abortion allowed or not? We vote for judges we think will agree with us on the issues we care about.

I think this young lady represents that position quite well. Besides, she's really cute, so let's see more of her!

David said...

The Crack Emcee said...

"Damn, she talks fast!"

It's a flaw in her programming. They are working on it.

The Crack Emcee said...

chickelit,

There is clearly something underfoot here…a certain "will to power" or a “to the death” determination.

Yeah, it's too bad Ann doesn't ask people what their spiritual beliefs are, too.

Whatever. Stamp 'em out, that's what I say.

mesquito said...

Oh bullshit, smilin jack. I'm not in a law school. I really don't care either way about abortions but I think Roe is a monstrosity. I hate commies and flag-burners, but I hope we have judges who protect their rights to commie around and burn Old Glory.

Don't project your ugly cynicism on innocent people.

SteveR said...

Clearly she is pretty good at repeating a set of talking points (really quickly as Crack says) but she struggles trying to get back onto them when the question gets her off track. Intelligent she appears to be but no match for real understanding. It could have been really ugly.

Carol_Herman said...

I loved this video! You are interviewing an absolutely exquisite child. (Back in the 1960's, hippies were grunge.) That she has a definite opinion? Yup. Like Winston Churchill said, "when young, our hearts are in it. Then we grow older and become more conservative."

At the end, when you said "you were going to go and find your husband," I thought in our day and age ... to a lot of beautiful women ... that statement was "very quaint."

Another beautiful day in Madison.

What happens on April 6th, when the results come in? (I am so reminded of Pauline Kael's remark, when Nixon won in 1968. And, she wrote in the New Yorker that "no one I know voted for Nixon.")

This beautiful redhead's world is not mainstream. Or? Perhaps I'm just fooling myself?

pbAndj said...

"Nobody outside a law school gives a damn if a judge is "properly judicial," whatever that even means."

I would lean more toward this estimation of folks true motivations.

But, Althouse assures this girl that most folks actually care about the intangible, rather than the concrete. What else would you expect from a law prof?

garage mahal said...

What an utterly despicable position of hers: to deliberately seek to undo one branch of government with another

Who? Kloppenberg? What did she say?

You wouldn't last long as a fish, chickelit. Hell, you'd be "Just net me! Here I am!".

Browndog said...

That was precious.

Exhibit A:

The push me/pull you of liberalism.

The truth is everywhere;accept over there...those are lies.

Damn stinking LIES!

The Crack Emcee said...

David,

"Damn, she talks fast!"

It's a flaw in her programming. They are working on it.


That's funny. I've read it three times and laughed every time. But now I'm worried you ain't joking. You are joking, right?

I'm sorry but my interactions with white people are limited,...

pbAndj said...

mesquito,

You are precisely stating that you care about the particular results of judges. You support judges that rule the way you want them to. You are doing what Althouse told this girl doesn't happen.

Julius said...

on a tangent:

A new poll concludes that Republicans view Scott Walker more favorably than any of the potential Presidential candidates for 2012.

That's a very quick rise to the favorability top. Goes to show how easy it is for someone willing to take on the establishment under the banner of fiscal sanity while remaining calm, patient, and composed.

From one of the pollsters:

"None of the folks most seriously considering this race have been able to get any momentum yet, leaving a lot of room for a fresher face to enter and get a lot of traction... Walker's crusade against the unions has put him in a position where he could be that guy."

He'd have my vote!

chickelit said...

Who? Kloppenberg? What did she say?

No you idiot. Her supporters and approved endorsors. From Kloppenburg's webpage:

We must have a truly nonpartisan and independent Supreme Court to check and balance the other two branches. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Justice Prosser can be an independent jurist, based on prior statements and decisions. I am therefore endorsing JoAnne Kloppenburg in the upcoming General Election to replace Justice Prosser and to restore faith in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the court." Marla Stephens

That's an utterly bad-faith case of projection. The burden is on on Stephens, and yes Kloppenburg, to explain that little bit of projection.

chickelit said...

@grudge mahal: Show me the equivalent partisan invective on Prosser's part. Show me something --anything where he says or endorses someone who says: "My opponent is partisan"

Malesch Morocco said...

What does Sir Archy have to say?

Malesch Morocco said...

What does Sir Archy have to say?

P.S. Hello My Brother Issob!

Brent said...

I am getting really, really scared about future generations if they are all anything like this bimbo who can't reason her way out of a paper bag.

Or, from underneath some man sexually taking advantage of her naivete.

Gosh! How much did taxpayers put out for education?

I want it back.

mesquito said...

"You are precisely stating that you care about the particular results of judges."

I'm precisely saying that I care that judges decisions conform with the law, and not my personal partisan desires.

Carol_Herman said...

The crowds are gone!

In watching the video what got interesting to me is there was so little "background" stuff.

And, at least this lady is NOT the "nurse with the bullhorn." Which was an unforgettable video.

Did you know there was only one person with a sign? There didn't even seem to be all that many people walking out of the building.

You know, I am so glad this gal cooperated.

Now, off topic, I would like to talk about a non-fiction book. Written by a law professor at Harvard: NOAH FELDMAN. SCORPIONS.

It's about the picks FDR made to the Supreme Court. 4 liberals. Felix Frankfurter. Robert Jackson. Hugo Black. And, William O. Douglas.

It was said, in 1952, that the Supreme Court Justices were like "9 scorpions in a bottle." Which is where Feldman draws his title: SCORPIONS.

The men were geniuses. Each one had his own judicial philosophy. Sure, we see this today, as well. But the people are different. And, some philosophies now come out of the right. Bork by the way, did not make it onto the court. So who sez stuff's not political?

Maybe, if you become a priest, you lose your personality. But judges? That will be the day.

garage mahal said...

Chicklet
I just emailed you. Just do it!

foxtrot said...

"Koch/Rove spent nearly $600,000 on Prosser's primary campaign"

A number of goons (especially of the union variety) contributed greatly to Obama's $600,000,000+ campaign. I don't think any liberal is in a position to talk about what conservatives have contributed to campaigns of any sort.

Lance said...

She's pretty scattered, but she's got the talking points down: a judicial candidate shouldn't come out and say she'll oppose Walker's legislation, but voters should figure out from the her "actions" which way she'll decide and vote accordingly.

Unfortunately, isn't this pretty much how Presidents select Supreme Court nominees?

detroitexile said...

Awesome! A law professor knows more about the law than a random 18-year old. That's like a Chris Christie video.

Chickelit:
Prosser certainly dances up to the line a couple times in this

pbAndj said...

mesquito,

I think Althouse is trying to say that it's bad to admit you support judges because they're committed to your personal battery of litmus tests, regarding specific decisions.

That sort of process is supposed to be reserved for politicians, who campaign on specific issues.

Folks are taught (as, it seemed, this girl started to learn toward the end of this conversation) to hide their litmus tests, so folks end up talking about "strict constructionists" for Rs and "judicial pragmatists" or whatever euphemisms Ds prefer.

ambisinistral said...

Hehehe... according to this article the Wisconsin Supreme court needs at least 4 of the 7 judges to decide a case.

Oh nozers, another quorum!!! Better start guarding the Illinois boarders again.

E.M. Davis said...

I'd be more interested if it were a fair fight.

Almost Ali said...

Marilee said...
She's what, 18?? She doesn't know what she doesn't know.

Exactly. But I also give her credit for knowing she doesn't know the judiciary.

Note: I was disappointed yesterday when Ann chopped this girl, the boot girl, off at the legs - that is, Althouse got herself distracted and wandered off with a self-proclaimed homeless man begging for a conversation. Or more accurately, begging for someone who would listen.

John said...

The Lefties Want to Elect
The Wicked Witch of the West
To the Wisconsin Supreme Court
So the Witch can Contort
All the Laws to the Union's Behest.

Maguro said...

I think Althouse is trying to say that it's bad to admit you support judges because they're committed to your personal battery of litmus tests, regarding specific decisions.

As long they're based on legal concepts and not transient political issues, having litmus tests is fine. Looking at a judge's track record on, say, free speech issues is absolutely a legitimate way to evaluate candidates. How else would you figure out who to vote for?

David53 said...

I think Garage is on some type of democratic viagra. He's been really "up" for punishment since this whole thing began. Remember, erections lasting more than 3 weeks may kill you. I wouldn't want one of your heads to explode.

But I do respect you Garage, A man who can stay hard than long deserves respect. I just don't agree with your point.

Michael K said...

I wonder, if the technology had existed in 1933, you might have gotten a similar video from a German voter. That young woman is pretty scary.

Michael K said...

I wonder, if the technology had existed in 1933, you might have gotten a similar video from a German voter. That young woman is pretty scary.

AJ Lynch said...

The repubs broke the law? Libruls like her love to just make shit up or divert attention from whatever the topic of discusson is...like when they cry we can't require parental notice for abortion cause she may have been a victim of incest. Yeah right as if that % is material or significant. No wonder most lawyers are libruls and love the Dem party.

wv = coedbrat

Michael K said...

For a while I stopped reading the blog, only to return during the Walker-Union tussle. To your credit, this is the best the blog has ever been.

Could you do a little clean up in the comments?


To Washington Monthly, I am a troll because I disagree with the hard left theme of that blog. I am periodically banned; the last time was during the Obamacare debates when I was providing too much information about health care models that weren't the Obamacare model (whatever it is ).

It is dangerous to ban people for disagreeing. Spam is another matter but the left is the side that consistently abuses or bans those who disagree.

Often the left helps to demolish their own arguments. I see it here.

Reagan said...

Prof.:

Did you feel like even a little bit of a fraud when you told the young lady you "knew a little bit about the judiciary?" I mean, why didn't you just tell her you were a lawyer?

Also, I know you have to pimp out your conservative echo chamber, and, perhaps, your husband, but if you are truly cruelly neutral, how come you haven't commented on the vile Club for Growth ads that saturated the airwaves for Justice Prosser in the primary and will be soon to return for the general. They basically said that Prosser would side with prosecutors and police and, by implication, the other candidates don't really mind if your children are dealt drugs or are raped by their friends, the criminals.

Finally, wasn't the young lady just being honest when she said the court was 4-3 for Republicans (if you call Crooks a Dem, which is sketchy at best)?

Biff said...

Marilee said...
She's what, 18?? She doesn't know what she doesn't know.

My work often has me returning to my alma mater (now twenty five years after graduating), and I enjoy having conversations like these with students. On occasion, I get a peculiar variation of deja vu, as I recall conversations from a quarter of a century ago, as though I am speaking with a younger version of myself. I usually leave such conversations struck by how much I have gained over the years, as well as how much I've lost.

Professor Althouse was a redhead when she was a student, if I recall correctly. I'd bet that she spoke quickly and earnestly back then, too, but, presumably, the professorial depth arrived later.

Give the young lady interviewed here about twenty years. She doesn't know what she doesn't know, but that may change.

Bob Ellison said...

People here disparage the young woman in this video stupidly. She is a very good speaker, and she listens well to the Professor's questions. She knows what she's talking about. (And she's also pretty.)

It's not stupid. It's the way she and many, many, many, many...many people think. They do not buy into the hierarchical, systemic concept of a constitutional republic. Probably many of them never learned of it, or were convinced of its merits. But smart people like this woman are why it's not just a cakewalk convincing people that capricious rule by the benevolent elite is a good idea.

pbAndj said...

Maguro,

The theory is that you look at integrity, knowledge about the law, competence, experience, quality of previous decisions (assuming this is a judicial promotion), and so on.

But, what if a judge has all of that, but their decisions don't match what your side of the aisle prefers? That's when the euphemisms are rolled out. For example, when the supremes stop the Florida recount, it's judicial activism, from one POV. Or when they guarantee women the right to an abortion, it's judicial activism, from the other POV.

Of course, it goes w/o saying, that your personal POV on these and all issues is the absolutely correct view. So, obviously, all the judges you prefer are the right ones.

Ha.



"I mean, why didn't you just tell her you were a lawyer?"

Althouse has clearly stated that she's "infiltrat[ing]" her fellow citizens so that she can prove to the tubes that she lives in a chaotic, mob infested hell-hole.

Bob Ellison said...

uh..."not a good idea"

wv: explak...probably what I needed before posting

Marc said...

I actually thought she was impressive, just indoctrinated like all bright young students these days. But why all the hostility, folks? She held up to the professor's socratic method surprisingly well. Most kids can't think on their feet like that at all. At this point, the only tools at her disposal are liberal. Eventually she'll realize that she is losing every argument with thinking people. I expect she'll eventually figure out why. Hopefully she'll come around some day, once she gets some life experience. Then watch out.

Ann Althouse said...

"Yeah, I wished Althouse would ask how the legislature broke the law. I imagine she didn't want to get into a discussion about whatever nits the left is picking about the way the law was passed."

I did but I didn't keep it in this edit. She referred to the open meetings law, the violation of which she characterized as a crime. I asked about the Democratic senators: didn't they break the law. She said they did not, that they had the right to use their power to deny a quorum, and that it was wrong to find them in contempt, because they were doing their jobs -- in Illinois.

Ann Althouse said...

"Nobody outside a law school gives a damn if a judge is "properly judicial," whatever that even means. We only care about the result: can I carry a gun or not? Do I have to buy health insurance or not? Is abortion allowed or not? We vote for judges we think will agree with us on the issues we care about."

That statement is inconsistent with the evidence of Wisconsin Supreme Court elections over the last 2 decades that I have observed.

Browndog said...

She's not stupid, she's pretty, she believes what she's saying, she's young, Althouse used to have red hair.

As Scalia would say, cutting through and hour of oral jibberish with one sentence:

SHE'S WRONG.

Synova said...

I think that for a whole lot of people "I don't like that" is a synonym for "illegal".

I came to that conclusion from all the "impeach Bush" noise making where people who otherwise appeared to be high functioning people seemed to be making the argument sincerely. "I don't like the war so... it must be illegal."

It's likely that this young lady has no concept whatsoever that what she prefers and what the law requires aren't *precisely* the same things.

Starting from that basic assumption the rest of her argument follows quite logically. She doesn't want to politicize the judiciary, she simply wants the law followed... the law that precisely mirrors her own desires and opinions.

Because *truth* has a liberal slant.

MarkDD975 said...

@ Bob Ellison: "People here disparage the young woman in this video stupidly. She is a very good speaker, and she listens well to the Professor's questions."

Bob,
Please don't call people stupid. It's not nice. And not true either. Listen again. She constantly starts to answer questions before the question is complete. It is very annoying; and does not further the quest for truth and understanding either.

Ann Althouse said...

"Did you feel like even a little bit of a fraud when you told the young lady you "knew a little bit about the judiciary?" I mean, why didn't you just tell her you were a lawyer?"

I wasn't into pulling rank. I think it's a more interesting conversation when you don't purport to know more. I was asking questions, being Socratic. I didn't try to overpower her. This was genuinely Socratic.

Marc said...

Like I said. And assuming she was only 18 or so, wouldn't you agree she held up better than your average Con Law I student?

Lucius said...

It's a welcome surprise that the cutie with the booties proves to be so--articulate-- but I wish she were looking for arguments instead of talking points.

That she engaged in a full 25min. dialogue while remaining so apparently personable testifies to an essentially amicable character.

She's not bitter, but terribly idealistic in the hard-Left-leaning way. Crimes have been committed!!!--against the innocent Democratic Senators! *Seriously*: that's the talking point now? What, because they think there was really only maybe 1hr 57mins notice before the Senate vote or something? That's the kind of thread this awesome plan for mass impeachment is hanging on? Never mind 3 weeks of sheer derilection from the Democratic caucus!

She's polite and, even by the least optimistic prognosis, her motormouth (and I love a motormouth) demonstrates better intelligence than the glazed-over middle-age and student types so frequently documented in these Meadhouse videos. But I do wish she weren't so blazingly subjective about everything.

I mean, "laws." Just depends on your "moral background"!

Godspeed, Gothy redhead chick. And read some Camille Paglia!

Bob Ellison said...

@MarkDD975 said: "Please don't call people stupid. It's not nice."

I didn't call anyone stupid. I said what they were doing was stupid. It is.

MarkDD975 said...

@Bob Ellison: "I didn't call anyone stupid. I said what they were doing was stupid. It is."

Same thing. Straighten up!

(I love to tell lefties what to do!)

Ann Althouse said...

"Professor Althouse was a redhead when she was a student, if I recall correctly. I'd bet that she spoke quickly and earnestly back then, too, but, presumably, the professorial depth arrived later."

I wasn't interested in politics at that age, nor was I earnest. I wasn't into policy arguments or insisting that my side of an argument is completely right. I'm still not.

Synova said...

I don't see any reason to pick on her. I think she did a good job and had thought about the issues and was quite quick. She seemed to listen and she seemed to be thinking about her answers, if not appearing exactly thoughtful over them.

She did a good job.

(Being wrong doesn't change that.)

Ann Althouse said...

"People here disparage the young woman in this video stupidly. She is a very good speaker, and she listens well to the Professor's questions. She knows what she's talking about."

It wouldn't have been worth editing and posting otherwise. Believe me, we have tons of video of us talking to people for a long time, and most of it is boring.

Synova said...

Oh, and I think she's well past 18. The rest of us are just getting old so everyone looks like a baby.

Marc said...

Anyone under 20 being questioned by someone over 40 without falling back on "whatever" gets bonus points.

MarkDD975 said...

@Ann Allthouse: "Believe me, we have tons of video of us talking to people for a long time, and most of it is boring."

I agree that it was interesting. I don't agree with Bob Ellison that your interlocutor is beyond criticism. In fact, she is a scary fanatic who was not at all thoughtful. Interesting, articulate, and vapid. Those who criticised her, like Crack Emcee, were not stupid. They were perceptive. "Interesting" is a somewhat decadent characterization.

MeTooThenMail said...

Seven Machos and Michael K

To clarify:

Substantive disagreement and discussion is interesting and is encouraged.

An echo chamber of any orientation is boring and useless.

There is a clear distinction between the two - and more importantly between those who comment that have something to add, especially if you disagree with them, and trolling.

BusHitler!

Koch!

Or put another way, I'm sure it's due to their belief that Prosser is a strict constitutionalist textualist blah blah fucking blah blah though. Because conservatives are so principled that way ya'll!

Blech.

Anyway, like I said, the blog is very interesting.

Having finished my lecture for the medical school tomorrow, I will leave you to comment, disagree, and troll.

Enjoy.

MarkDD975 said...

"Interesting" is a somewhat decadent characterization.

And along come "Me Too Then Mail" to make my point.

Not that I don't enjoy a little decadence now and the. But, I don't think Ann (my heroine) should honor it.

Bob Ellison said...

@MarkDD975, the redhead in the video isn't beyond criticism at all. She does not appear to understand or respect the American system of government.

What you fail to understand is that her view is widespread. She is not a "scary fanatic who was not at all thoughtful". She is in fact obviously quite intelligent. She is not scary. She is clearly not currently fanatical. Her attention to the Professor's questions indicates her thoughtfulness. Young people like her tend to be this way.

That is the problem. If those of us on the right keep thinking stupidly, as you do, MarkDD975, that only an idiot could think the way this young woman does, then it won't matter whether they are idiots. They will beat us anyway.

Lucius said...

On a 2nd viewing I'm catching the "I've been reading a lot of articles" and you can see, from the flurry of points she has on this and that, that she doubtless does a lot of reading, on top of the obvious conversing.

This earnest fixation with the 'crimes' committed, as well as the conspicuous belief that a judiciary is just a legislature of next resort, is a sad comment on the intellectual air that is breathed in today's center-left.

I say "center" purposefully, because there just seems to be so little patience among the Democratic fold for the idea that laws should have some kind of objective resilience to them. For rank-and-file liberals, the judiciary is just like Brussels now; it's supposed to impose a Higher Liberal Dispensation, laws, even Constitution, be damned.

And every legislative manuever that is adverse to their pet causes is a "crime" too.

wv: gurobic The NewAge underpinnings of the fitness culture

Browndog said...

"I wasn't interested in politics at that age, nor was I earnest. I wasn't into policy arguments or insisting that my side of an argument is completely right. I'm still not."

Said Althouse.

A lawyer to the end.

Trained in nuance, nothing is completely right...unless you're wrong.

I'm not criticizing, just observing.

One doesn't dive headlong into the good fight without conviction.

unless....you're a fool.

Althouse is no fool.

MarkDD975 said...

Bob Ellison, please stop calling names. That is all I ask, except also please stop honoring decadence. This girl is very nice, very engaged, and has no worthy aguments. "Interesting" doesn't hack it with me at my advanced aged. I prefer wisdom and truth. I may be older than Meade!

Maguro said...

The theory is that you look at integrity, knowledge about the law, competence, experience, quality of previous decisions (assuming this is a judicial promotion), and so on.

Yeah, but how do you evaluate the quality of a judge's decisions? Not by checking to see if their rulings benefitted you political party, I hope.

cubanbob said...

Ann wasn't the fab 14 meeting outside the state also a meeting and a violation of the open meetings law?

Methadras said...

It was like watching a cat playing with a mouse. A cute redheaded mouse with really hot boots.

wv = munching = oh yea.

Bob Ellison said...

@MarkDD975, SLAM SLAM SLAM>.

No, wait. I think I should apologize there.

But age doesn't get you a free pass either. I'm no spring chicken. Anyway, let's get 'em young and raise 'em right this time. I've got sons that want to enjoy this world after I'm gone.

Irene said...

Justice Prosser really is a decent man. That ear-plug story says a lot about him.

MarkDD975 said...

@Bob Ellison: "I've got sons that want to enjoy this world after I'm gone."

I think they'll benefit from a culture that honors wisdom and truth, rather than "interesting" exchanges with fanatical lefties (enjoyable and provacative as they may be).

You can call it a slam if you like. That was not what I intended. Sorry about that.

Lucius said...

@Irene: I would think so too. My ears are fairly sensitive so that's something I'm attuned to.

But I wonder if the redhead saw some perceived slight in that? Like he was dissing on the protests as just a bunch of *noisemaking*?

Judging from the videos some of the protests *have* been harshly loud.

Maybe I'm inferring too much, but I wondered if she at least implied that this was, in fact, a frivolous and out-of-touch, "Let them eat cake" thing on his part? Even if he's the one handing out the cake, as it were?

Like: do something useful like overturning a law we don't like!

Biff said...

Althouse wrote... I wasn't interested in politics at that age, nor was I earnest. I wasn't into policy arguments or insisting that my side of an argument is completely right. I'm still not.

My speculation merely was that you spoke quickly and earnestly at that age; evidently my speculation was wrong. I made no assertion regarding whether or not young Althouse had been interested in politics or policy, or that the young Althouse insisted on the complete rightness of any cause.

I enjoy working with bright, articulate students who are a bit inexperienced and are a bit too certain of particular things. The Socratic method is one of the most effective tools for helping such individuals to improve themselves and to appreciate (and to respect) the complexity of the world, and you wield it well.

The person you interviewed reminds me quite a bit of my very bright niece, right down to the rapid-fire speech, the eagerness to jump in before others finish sentences, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if your interviewee spent some time in the NYC area, where such cadences are commonplace. In any case, it's taken me about a year of playing Socrates to get my niece out of the "talking point" style of speech and into a more thoughtful, balanced mode where she listens and asks questions as much as she pontificates. It's been very rewarding to see her begin to engage honestly and productively with differing points of view, and I'm proud to say that she's caught me off guard with an observation or two.

...but I ramble on.

MarkDD975 said...

@Biff: "I'm proud to say that she's caught me off guard with an observation or two."

This should be a source of shame for most adults.

I have very little patience for grown-up people with years of experience in the real world pandering to young people who are clearly clueless -- like the lovely young blabbermouth that entranced Ann Althouse. what bullshit!

Irene said...

@Lucius, I think that may be her take on the ear plugs. She keeps referring to Kloppenburg's background, however, as a preparation for or substantiaton of a judicial temperament. Kloppenburg has been at the DOJ for over twenty years.

William said...

Some historian--and he won a MacArthur grant for this insight--proved that contrary to Marx the determining factor in one's support of the Old Regime in the French Revolution was not class but birth order. The oldest child, regardless of class, was supportive of the Ancien Regime. The youngest child, regardless of class, was in favor of the Revolution.....I wonder if I could get a Guggenheim grant to study the impact of good looking red haired women on political events. My guess is that their influence is out of all proportion to their numbers. Although her arguments are not especially convincing, her presence is. Multiply her by several dozen and Prosser is doomed.....Pet peeve: Why do the Democrats, the party of the hedge fund managers, tenured academics, and Hollywood stars get to claim the title of The People.

Carol_Herman said...

A typical California ballot can go on for 10 pages. And, I'll admit the truth. There are categories where I don't know a soul. Yet I'm expected to "vote for one."

What do you do in a situation like that?

When I called the election authorities, they didn't know if I left whole areas blank, if it would cause my ballot to be tossed and not counted. What does the law say? Do I have to vote every single category?

Have you ever picked someone because their name sounded Jewish?

You bet, if I see someone's an incumbent, I tend to vote for someone else.

Even California's Supreme Court. Except for when Bird lost her seat, I cannot name the current judges up there. (Yes, I can name the US Supreme Court. And, I can name a few judges who sit on the 9th Circuit.

Yes, I give this kid a lot of slack!

MarkDD975 said...

@William: "Although her arguments are not especially convincing, her presence is."

More evidence of decadence. What bullshit! What does this even mean??

Art said...

I certainly wish I had been interviewed by you Wednesday than the Milwaukee TV station as maybe more than 15 seconds would have been used of a five minute interview, although they do great edits and graphics.

MarkDD975 said...

@Carol Herman: "Yes, I give this kid a lot of slack!"

This does not follow from the preceding rambling nonsense. You must be drunk?

Lucius said...

@William: Just casually going off a memory of a "New Yorker" book review, I think the guy you're talking about was an evolutionary psychologist who wrote that eldest sons *tend* to be pillars of order (of course, primogeniture and the like would encourage that) *but* that the ranks of eldest sons, when they produce heretical thinkers, these rebel eldest sons become revolutionary leaders: and that (I can't confirm any of this!) Robespierre and Mao and this whole impresive litany of famed Revolutionaries through modern history were all eldest sons.

I think the idea was that youngest sons generically tend to be rebellious, but the eldest sons who go against traditions are the real Lucifers. Partly because they feel a paternal burden of duty towards the younger siblings, this develops some kind of keen sense of being arbiters who can right wrongs.

Anyway: evolutionary psychology would surely say a few things about the Redhead's persuasive charms. Not that you need Darwin's train to see that!

@Mark: Noone's saying she's Diotima. But having a personable and attractive look and ambience can contribute to *make* a person seem more Diotima-like. Or take Alcibiades if you prefer. His appeal probably was "decadent" too-- But Socrates still tried to help guide him.

@Irene: Yeah, I see what you mean!

MarkDD975 said...

IRT: @Mark: No one's saying she's Diotima. But having a personable and attractive look and ambience can contribute to *make* a person seem more Diotima-like. Or take Alcibiades if you prefer. His appeal probably was "decadent" too-- But Socrates still tried to help guide him."

True. She should be guided. But I'd hope Ann would want us to talk about real issues and not be diverted by youthful bullshit. That's her day job. Interesting, but not enlightening to people who have decades of experience. We aren't easily persuaded by vapid, fast-talking teen-agers. Not much to learn from them. And I see no reason to patronize them by pretending otherwise.

Biff said...

MarkDD975 said... @Biff: "I'm proud to say that she's caught me off guard with an observation or two."

This should be a source of shame for most adults.

I have very little patience for grown-up people with years of experience in the real world pandering to young people who are clearly clueless

Mark, thank you for patiently reading through so many of the comments on this post. That said, you're embarrassing yourself.

On those occasions when a young person happens to supply a reasonable perspective that hadn't been considered previously by a thoughtful, experienced older person, it's a rare treat, a hopeful sign. It's not a matter of shame. Perhaps you need to start hanging around a better group of young people.

It's not about pandering; it's about being effective. For some people and in some situations, a direct, lecturing approach is best. In other circumstances, a more patient, Socratic approach will educate a student (or an opponent) more effectively. It's all about matching the argument and the approach to the objective.

My objective is to develop potential when I see it. When the realm is political, my objective is attract people to positions and policies that are consistent with my values, all the while refining my own perspective and correcting my errors when they are discovered.

I think I've figured out your objective.

MarkDD975 said...

@Biff: "Mark, thank you for patiently reading through so many of the comments on this post. That said, you're embarrassing yourself...My objective is to develop potential when I see it. When the realm is political, my objective is attract people to positions and policies that are consistent with my values, all the while refining my own perspective and correcting my errors when they are discovered."

What a wonderful person you are!

"I think I've figured out your objective."

I don't have any objective other than exposing bullshit. It gives me special pleasure to call your especially sanctimonious bullshit, bullshit.

MarkDD975 said...

I thank Ann Althouse for permitting my awful truth-telling. She is very tolerant and wise.

Carol_Herman said...

How many people can name the supreme court justices of their state?

I just said I can't name the California Supreme Court justices. And, I can't name the justices who sit on New York's State Supreme Court, either.

So, whatever test you want to give the young woman who was interviewed, especially on the knowledge of "judicial temperament" ... I thought most people wouldn't know judicial temperament from a hole in the wall. And, sometimes on a ballot, we pick people of whom we know nothing. (It's like a test. You don't want to leave a question blank.)

Biff said...

MarkDD975 said...What a wonderful person you are!

I get that a lot. People dig me. Especially the ones who have gone on and made something of themselves.

MarkDD975 also said...I don't have any objective other than exposing bullshit. It gives me special pleasure to call your especially sanctimonious bullshit, bullshit.

You're a very brave Truth Teller. A Light Walker, even. Very effective. I am thoroughly chastened.

William said...

@Lucius: Thank you for your kind explication. I think I read the same article. The writer observed tha Great Britain what with primogeniture was run by the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son. Hence Britain was less shaken by the tremors that passed through Europe. What I found interesting was that class determinism was secondary to birth order and that Marx was wrong....In like way, a personable young woman with a pleasant manner can sell an awful lot of merchandise. Madame Albright is seldom paid to endorse any products although her knowledge of orthopedic underwear is probably encylcopedic.

MarkDD975 said...

Carol,
You should expect more from our young people. If they deliver less, as this "interesting" young lady did. She ought not to be praised. Her ignorance is destructive. If you were her Mama, or her teacher, you should be more forgiving, perhaps. But you shouldn't tolerate her ignorant fascism for long even then. Even if she talks fast and seems interested in issues of public policy, she is not five years old, and should be held to a MUCH higher standard.

That's my opinion.

MarkDD975 said...

@Biff: "You're a very brave Truth Teller. A Light Walker, even. Very effective. I am thoroughly chastened."

Stop calling me names, please. I'm not interested in flame wars, even if you are.

Biff said...

MarkDD975 said...Stop calling me names, please. I'm not interested in flame wars, even if you are.

Well, you sure had me fooled there, but since you said please, I'll stop. Flame wars are exceedingly tedious.

MarkDD975 said...

Biff,
Your passive-aggressive sarcasm exceeds exceedingly tedious.

Also, please stop making excuses for young fascists. Play it again and listen closely. That's what she is. My objective is to point that out. Ann, the teacher, sees a student. I see a fascist who is young enough to be pulled back from the brink by understanding folks like you and Ann. But among us grown-ups we need to tell everyone that this cute young thing is a fascist.

Alex said...

The girl is a fascist, she won't listen to reason. I have to wonder why she's more busy with this political activist bullshit then hanging out at the local teen gathering hole. She's not normal.

MarkDD975 said...

What the fuck is a "local teen gathering hole?"

Alex said...

Bowling alleys, video arcades, Starbucks, etc...

MarkDD975 said...

Arresting Republicans for voting the wrong way is "normal." And we should accept that idea. If we object, we're in favor of "local teen gathering hole[s]."

edward said...

Prety girl... trying to think and almost has coherent thoughts.... She'll be alright in the long run...

BUT right now she could be the poster child for the shallow vapid "thinking" of much of the left

Issob Morocco said...

She is a poster child for judicial activism.

Dale said...

She is the poster child for a government dependent.

I love how she - so representative of all liberals - wants to impose her will on the rest of us through judges. She lost at democracy, now she wants to change the meaning of democracy to "judges we like ruling our way".

Why is it liberals say with their mouths that democracy is a good thing, but seek to undo it's existence when they can't win otherwise?

Dale said...

And yes, she is a fascist. The majority of liberals in this country are comfortable with that.

Writ Small said...

Depressing that while the woman is obviously bright, she so intensely pulls for her side that an impartial judiciary is utterly secondary to getting outcomes she desires.

That said, she's appears thoughtful enough to reconsider.

Issob Morocco said...

Hello Malesch, what news from Cyrenaica do you bring?

LarsPorsena said...

"BUT right now she could be the poster child for the shallow vapid "thinking" of much of the left."

She is the poster child for the vapid thinking of much of our educational system.

Duncan said...

Pretty girl. Too bad about the nail polish.

Does she realize that if she continuously talks and works her facial muscles in that "lefty" style, she'll ruin her face.

The contrasting speech and facial communication styles of commies and those who are "of the Right", cause differing appearances later in life.

One's soul is truly written on one's visage.

Class factotum said...

And, sometimes on a ballot, we pick people of whom we know nothing.

No, we look at the sample ballot before we vote and google the names of the candidates so we can make an informed choice.

If we know nothing about the candidates when we are at the polls, we do not vote in that category because our country is not served by eeny meeny miney mo picks.

vbspurs said...

Oh, is this my chick with the boots? Cool.

PogoПОССУМ said...

Girl with the black boots of sexy is цветок flower of Glorious Education under Socialiysma.

But she need remember old Russian sayink:
"Болту́н — нахо́дка для шпио́на."
A chatterbox is a treasure for a spy.

RuyDiaz said...

Something else about her speaking fast.... Could that be 'debate experience'--being in the high school debate team, or something of the sort?

She's bright and well-spoken, but needs to pause to find the truth, rather than try to win at all costs.

dbp said...

The young woman has an irritating voice, but is utterly charming with the sound off.

Duncan said...

"The young woman has an irritating voice"

It's that left-wing accent. You did realize there was a left-wing accent, didn't you. Any affinity group tends to develop a particular accent.

Lucius said...

@vbspurs: Yes, Goth Garbo talks!!

I'm tickled, regardless!

raf said...

She reminds me of one of Ann's old (teenage?) pictures. There may be hope for her in the future.

Sixty Grit said...

Oh yeah, a hot redhead on redhead battle of wits. Oops, one of them was only a half wit. That's disappointing.

Mike said...

"I kinda am" (knowledgeable about the judicial branch).

Blast you, Ann. Coffee and eggs all over my keyboard and screen. Now I have to clean it up....


Anyway, whoever said that this young lady will be ok may be right. But I wish she had had an American Government teacher who had really taught her carefully about the separation of power and the consequences of not adhering to that philosophy. Or maybe I just want to inflict my sarcastic, brilliant, socratic, and obsessive-compulsive high school government teacher who tormented legions of us in the 60's and 70's.

muddimo said...

I don't think Althouse et al. are giving this girl enough credit. She was articulate, willing to engage and very polite (very impressed) despite a note of condescension at times from her interlocutor. Don't agree with her politics but she is quite correct that (a) judges do in fact have a political bent and (b) the public mostly cares about results, not judicial disposition. I think that most people in her position would have grown a little frustrated with Ann's somewhat silly pronouncements to the contrary.

muddimo said...

And all of you criticizing the young lady for her age, accent, rapidity of speech, etc. ought to head on over to Kos or one of the other sites specializing in juvenile snark. We can do better. BTW, despite my criticism, good work on this whole protest thing Ann and Meade--this is blogging at its best.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Lady Justice, to fools like this, should peek out from under her blindfold in order to see which side has the more just cause, and then favor that side by placing her finger the scale.

Smilin' Jack said...

"We vote for judges we think will agree with us on the issues we care about."

That statement is inconsistent with the evidence of Wisconsin Supreme Court elections over the last 2 decades that I have observed.

Not being in Wisconsin I don't pay much attention to the WI SC, but I do notice the US SC from time to time. And its members would disagree with you. That's why they try so hard not to die/retire until their successor can be appointed by a president from their favorite party, and why voters are especially motivated in presidential elections when the winning candidate is expected to fill a few US SC vacancies.

Despite your rather condescending attempt to "inspire insight," the young redhead may actually have more insight into how law works outside the law school than you do.

Also, you should make the shot wider--we want to see her all the way down to those boots!

Chris said...

Thanks for trying, Prof. Althouse.

This is what our Supreme Court elections have come to. They are highly political, with big money weighing in.

The sad part is that no one believes that our Justices are impartial anymore.

After the incredibly embarrasing split in the Wisconsin Supreme Court over the clash between ethics and freedom of expression in Justice Gableman's smears against former Justice Butler, who can blame anyone for concluding that they are partial and political?

Your insistence on impartiality is noble-- and I must agree with your stance, but it is nevertheless somewhat Quixotic, given the reality of big money in judicial politics.

Das said...

This post makes me think that Ms. Althouse is a good teacher; her students are lucky.

Phil 3:14 said...

I couldn't finish it but two thoughts:

1) drink less coffee

2) the supreme court isn't in the business of prosecuting legislators

Professor, your patience is to be commended. Professor Kingsfield would not have been so kind.

Ed said...

Bad interviewing. A good interviewer doesn't constantly interrupt his/her subject to argue their own point or to stop the subject from completing a thought. Rather, the interviewer gives the subject the opportunity to state their point, asking followup questions as needed. You constantly interrupted the subject and never let her develop an idea. It was clear that your agenda was to attempt to make her look bad rather than actually trying to understand what she had to say, whether or not you agreed with her. Really lame.

Andy said...

"It's very hard to push a Supreme Court candidate in pursuit of a political cause because you undermine the very argument you need to make: That she is properly judicial."

No, it isn't when one of the candidates has openly stated that his agenda is to further the agenda of a specific political party - one that he was a former legislative leader of.

Pretty weak argument on your part.