A New Approach to Interpreting the Wisconsin Constitution?

In the most recent edition of the Yale Law Journal, Professor Abbe Gluck observes a phenomenon unique to state supreme courts: precedents that bind courts’ interpretive methods. At the U.S. Supreme Court, justices constantly argue about the proper method for interpreting contractual, regulatory, statutory, and constitutional texts. Prof. Gluck observes that in some state courts, including Wisconsin, a single case definitely sets the method by which future judges will interpret legal texts.

The Wisconsin case she refers to is, of course, State ex rel. Kalal v. Dane County Circuit Court (2004), which set a method by which the court would interpret statutes. That method focuses first on the text of the statute, and circumscribes the use of legislative history and other secondary sources.

Another Wisconsin case Prof. Gluck could mention is Buse v. Smith (1976), decided nearly thirty years before Kalal. 

Continue ReadingA New Approach to Interpreting the Wisconsin Constitution?

Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal

One important, but perhaps underreported, development in our legal world is the work of the Legislature’s Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal. The committee grew out of a request from Justice Patrick Crooks for the legislature to consider amendments to statutes governing judicial discipline and disqualification. Both issues have been hot button items in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the wake of hotly contested and exceedingly well financed campaigns for seats on the Court in the 2007 and 2008 election cycles. The committee, consisting of legislators and public members, is charged with studying both issues and, if appropriate, make recommendations to the legislature.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of being one of nine invited guests to testify before the Committee. Four of the nine witnesses were sitting Justices on the Court – Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley, Crooks and Roggensack. The hearing can be viewed here. I am the last (or as I would prefer to say “clean up”) witness.

Yesterday’s hearing had to do with recusal although some of the speakers addressed matters of discipline, largely addressing issues concerning the deadlock in the Gableman matter and how that might be avoided in the future. Much of the discussion on recusal centered on whether the legislature should adopt an objective standard (presumably other than, as I pointed out, the one announced in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.), how that standard should be enforced and what it should be.

More to follow.

Continue ReadingSpecial Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal

Who Cares If No One Cares About the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

On the website of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), former Journal Sentinel columnist Mike Nichols asks: “Does anyone still care about the [Wisconsin] Supreme Court?”

He believes the answer is not really, and his evidence for this position is that the number of petitions for review of Court of Appeals decisions has dropped by about thirty percent since 2000. He acknowledges that several explanations for this drop are possible, but says the “precipitous” drop in the last several years “lends credence to the possibility, as former Justice William Bablitch hypothesized in an interview with me earlier this year, ‘that the acrimony on the court’” is to blame. According to Nichols, “This was not the attitude ten years ago.”

Actually, as Justice Bablitch ought to know, the acrimony on the court was just this bad (and just as public) ten years ago.  

Continue ReadingWho Cares If No One Cares About the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
Newer Posts
Older Posts