Why Ron Johnson Is Keeping A Wisconsin Law Professor Off The US Court Of Appeals
Freshman Senator Ron Johnson has been in office for seven months, but deems UW-Madison Law School Professor Victoria Nourse unqualified and is blocking her confirmation.
And a good thing he stepped in: look at her fly-by-night qualifications:
According to the White House, Nourse, 51, is currently the Burrus-Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, which she joined in 1993. She has also taught at the Emory University Law School, the University of Maryland School of Law, Yale Law School, New York University School of Law, and Georgetown University Law Center.Another website reveals more of these so-called 'qualifications:'
Nourse has written extensively on criminal law, legislation, constitutional history and the separation of powers. She also assisted then-Senator Joseph Biden in drafting the Violence Against Women Act, part of the Biden-Hatch Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Nourse received her B.A. in 1980 from Stanford University and her J.D. in 1984 from the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law.
Professor Nourse has written over two dozen articles on Congress, statutory interpretation, constitutional history and the criminal law, published in Yale, Stanford, Penn, Texas and other law reviews. In 2009, she published 3 articles: A Tale of Two Lochners in the California Law Review; The Lost History of Governance and Equality (with Sarah Maguire) in the Duke Law Journal; and Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a A New World Order Yield A New Legal Theory? (with Greg Shaffer) in the Cornell Law Review. In 2010, she will publish a book review essay, Toward A Representational Theory of the Executive (with Jack Figura) in the Boston University Law Review and, in 2011, Misunderstanding Congress: Statutory Interpretation, the Supermajoritarian Difficulty, and the Separation of Powers, in the Georgetown Law Journal.Johnson is the owner of an Oshkosh (corrected) plastics company, an accountant and first-time office-holder who attended Tea Party rallies and decided to run for office after seeing Dick Morris on Fox News discuss the Wisconsin Senate race.
Professor Nourse came to teaching after a series of assignments in Washington and New York. She was Senior Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under the Chairmanship of then-Senator, now Vice-President, Joseph Biden where she was charged with drafting Senator Biden's Violence Against Women Act (see Equal: Women Reshape American Law 309-444 (Norton 2009)). Professor Nourse came to the Judiciary Committee from appellate practice in the Justice Department, where she argued cases in the D.C. Circuit and other courts of appeal. Prior to that, she served as Special Counsel to the Senate Iran-Contra committee. She began practice in New York at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, after clerking for Judge Edward Weinfeld (S.D.N.Y). She is an order of the coif graduate of the University of California (Boalt) law school; and a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Stanford University.
More context here.
Johnson is also blocking a separate nomination to the US District Court bench for former Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, but only because he can.
20 comments:
Good, and Good.
Louis Butler was voted out of office for a reason. He is not a good judge.
With his whizbang journalist/ speechwriter egging him on to new heights of pomposity, with his head swelling over his new-found power of sabotage, he's almost at full stride on the gangplank.
@ Reagan's Disciple- I am dazzled by your sparkling discussion of the judicial merits of Justice Butler. Please go on.
Specifically, which of Butler's decisions do you find "not goodest?"
What makes the ethically-challenged, admitted liar Gableman a gooder judge than Louis Butler, again please refer to specific cases so that I may quote your wisdom and virtue.
What actions or qualities might have made Butler gooder in your eyes? Which of those serves as the reason he lost an election?
Thank you for sharing so that we might all share in your knowledge and light.
please refer to specific cases
That's easy. Schlatzamentzler v. Village of Grantsburg which established that Hendrick Schlatzamentzler shouldn't park in a loading zone.
It's an Oshkosh plastics company. Just an FYI for future posts and info sharing purposes.
Pacur
3555 Moser Street
Oshkosh, WI 54901-1270
(920) 236-2888
I don't know if my first post went through. My apologies if this ends up being a double post.
Just an FYI for future posts and info sharing. Johnson's company is in Oshkosh WI.
Pacur
555 Moser Street
Oshkosh, WI 54901-1270
(920) 236-2888
RB is getting his strings pulled by former JS writer MR.McNO Patrick McIlheran. McNo, no doubt has an office right next to RB just in case he can't think for himself. I suspect the carpet is getting a little worn between their offices. Would love to be a fly on the wall in both of their offices. "Patrick Patrick, what should I say? What should I write? I thought you said she wasn't qualified Patrick"
Correction: RJ is getting his strings pulled by former JS writer MR.McNO Patrick McIlheran. McNo, no doubt has an office right next to RJ just in case he can't think for himself. I suspect the carpet is getting a little worn between their offices. Would love to be a fly on the wall in both of their offices. "Patrick Patrick, what should I say? What should I write? I thought you said she wasn't qualified Patrick"
Let's put it this way. She's a HELL of a lot more qualified to be a judge than he is to be a senator.
That's pretty apparent.
@grumps
Not sure where the "gooder" and "goodest" comments come from. Certainly they were not from me.
Your drivel is only attempting to incite a childish response. If you wish to speak in an educated manner, let's do it. If not, I'm not interested in trading childish comments.
Let's start by talking about where collective liability came from in his writing in Thomas v Mallett.
After that we can go into the whole "Loophole Louis" nickname if you wish.
However, if you insist on using the childlike phrases found in your earlier comments, the discussion is over.
I look forward to your response on the case and why you believe it was a good ruling.
Last message was by Reagan's Disciple, not Anonymous. I hit enter to quickly.
Thanks James.
Let's not forget that one of the main 'selling points' of RoJo's candidacy was that there were too many lawyers in the US Senate )and not enough plastics manufacturers).
Now RoJo may be thinking there are too many jurists on the US Court of Appeals. . ..
Let's also not forget that Paddy Mac was a graphic artist at the MJS, before being catapulted onto the editorial board for God-knows-what reason. I found his writing style to be the written equivalent of snickering (usually at his own jokes) and typically lacking in logic.
I don't know Prof. Nourse's judicial philosophy but if she is not a strict constitutional constructionist she should be kept from the bench an as for Loophole Louis Butler he is unfit to serve as a municipal judge let alone a federal judge. he was a disgrace to the bench as an appointed supreme court justice and was quickly voted out of office by the people at the first opportunity,
@RD- I was merely responding to the high level of reasoning displayed in "He is not a good judge."
As to where the Loophole Louie nickname came from, that's pretty simple. It came from charlatans who deliberately miscontrued the meaning of the PD job in order to smear an effective attorney who had done his Constitutionally mandated job for his clients. It became a sort of dog-whistle for the uninformed and willfully ignorant who have little respect for the process of law.
And, despite all the protests of the perpetually offended, there has been no inrush of liability suits in the wake of the lead paint decision. Better legal minds than mine can debate the points of law in that decision but I'm willing to call those that predicted calamity for Wisconsin industrialists disingenuous liars.
Have someone reread your original comment to you and then ask them why you get the reaction you get. "He is not a good judge?" That's what you bring to the table?
After that we can go into the whole "Loophole Louis" nickname if you wish.
This would be the vicious, unfounded slur that led to ethics charges - still pending - against Gableman
"Johnson is the owner of an Oshkosh (corrected) plastics company, an accountant and first-time office-holder who attended Tea Party rallies and decided to run for office after seeing Dick Morris on Fox News discuss the Wisconsin Senate race."
I wouldn't hold RoJo's political inexperience against him so much if he hadn't shown a propensity toward arrogance of his views, coupled with lightweight intellect.
I said let's start with "collective liability" in Thomas v. Mallett.
Where was that term founded in the constitution or case law based on his writing for the majority?
and as for the unfounded slur... it's okay when democrats make stuff up about republicans though, right?
Well, it took about six seconds to find this much...
"Judge Richard Brown added that only the state's supreme court could extend the risk-contribution theory to apply to lead paint cases.
The theory was first presented in Wisconsin in Collins v. Eli Co., a class action by women who contracted vaginal cancer as a result of their mothers' taking the drug DES while pregnant. The state supreme court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have to identify the manufacturer or seller of the product believed to cause harm. (342 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. 1984).)
This decision came on the heels of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, another DES case, in which the California Supreme Court upheld the market-share liability theory. The court apportioned liability among the drug's manufacturers according to their share of the market for the product in the geographic area at the time it was used. (163 Cal. Rptr. 132 (1980).)
The risk-contribution theory considers market share as just one of the factors in determining a manufacturer's percentage of liability."
You know? Just sayin.
A good example, but flawed.
The case you cite said "the court apportioned liability among the drug's manufacturers according to their share of the market for the product in the geographic area at the time it was used."
In Butler's decision he extended that same theory of collective liability to companies who did NOT have market share and who did not even manufacture the product in question for which they were found liable for producing. Under Butler's writing for the majority, companies could be found liable for a product which they never even produced.
Just sayin.
Isn't the democratic playbook to now change the debate or simply forget about it.
....waiting, and waiting and still waiting.
Post a Comment