Walker, Neumann, and Eckstein Hall

Before we get to the candidates, how did the building do?

Wednesday night’s one-hour session between Mark Neumann and Scott Walker, who will face off in the  Republican primary for governor on Sept. 14, was the first event of its kind in Eckstein Hall, the new home o f the Law School.  The discussion – call it a debate, if you want – was hosted by Mike Gousha, the Law School’s distinguished fellow in law and public policy, and was broadcast live on television and radio stations across Wisconsin.  

And the building did fine. The Appellate Courtroom was an attractive setting, the logistics of the event went well, and, using the impressive array of equipment in the broadcast control room in the building, the technically-demanding broadcast went off without a hitch. That included segments in which people in five locations across the state joined in live to ask questions to the candidates.  To a casual viewer, it looked good. (Anyone on the inside of a live broadcast like this will roll their eyes at any use of the word “casual” in connection with such an effort.)

Oh, yes, the candidates.

Continue ReadingWalker, Neumann, and Eckstein Hall

Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” These two clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, respectively, are viewed by most as a reaction to both the establishment of the Church of England as that nation’s official religion and centuries of religious persecution throughout Europe. In fact, many of the original settlers came to America to avoid religious persecution. They simply wanted to be free to practice their own religion.

The Establishment Clause has been a hot topic, especially in the last half-century. Professor Esenberg has written about the ambitious nature of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. I agree: it is very difficult to achieve the apparent goal of religious neutrality. Instead, we should look to the meaning behind religious displays (or a National Day of Prayer) that are religious in nature rather than simply look at the fact that they are symbols of a certain religion.

The meaning of religious displays should be the important factor rather than the fact that they are religious in nature.

Continue ReadingFreedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion

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?