Who Is/Was Thomas More?

Thomas More was a very successful English lawyer (barrister — Lincoln’s Inn, 1501), a judge, and a Member of Parliament about the time of King Henry VIII. But he was much more than that. He came from a family of lawyers. His father, Sir John More, was a prominent lawyer and a judge.

We would probably not know about Sir Thomas More except for the fact that King Henry had appointed him Lord Chancellor of England and Wales in 1529, replacing Thomas Wolsey, but ultimately the King and Thomas did not see eye to eye with each other. As Lord Chancellor, he was the head of the judiciary and also the presiding officer of the House of Lords. We would call him the Chief Justice, as the House of Lords was the Supreme Court and in charge of regulating the judiciary. Sir Thomas was also one of the most respected people in England and Wales at the time — certainly the most respected lawyer then, and maybe one of the most respected lawyers of all time.

King Henry, you will recall, was married to Katherine of Aragon, his first wife. But he did not want to be married to her and in fact wanted to marry Anne Boleyn. 

Continue ReadingWho Is/Was Thomas More?

More Developments at the Wisconsin Supreme Court

I have to say that I was surprised by Justice Gableman’s decision to file a motion asking Justice Pat Crooks to recuse himself from his pending disciplinary case. I understand the rationale. Justice Crooks did make remarks pertaining to some of the issues in the disciplinary proceeding in the course of his writings in Allen v. State. Because he had not had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, these comments might raise concern that he had prejudged the issue. His reference to the comments of Justice Gableman’s attorney and Justice Gableman’s failure to repudiate them might be seen as importing an extraneous matter into the disciplinary proceeding. What Jim Bopp said in the course of that proceeding and whether or not Justice Gableman denounces his comments has nothing to do with the issues in that proceeding which are limited to whether the Reuben Mitchell ad violated SCR 60.06(3)(c).

Continue ReadingMore Developments at the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Whether NLRB Actually Still Exists

Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in an important case at the intersection of labor law, statutory interpretation, and administrative law. In New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, on appeal from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court will decide whether a two-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has the authority to engage in adjudication on behalf of the Board. The Board has operated with only two members for over two years, since the appointments of two Board members expired on December 31, 2007. Just before that time, effective midnight, December 28, 2007, the Board delegated all of its powers to a group of three members to continue to issue decisions and orders as long as a quorum of two members remained. Since that time, the two Board members remaining, acting as a quorum of the group, have issued over 500 decisions. 

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Hears Argument on Whether NLRB Actually Still Exists