Poor Get Legal Help Pulled in Walker Budget!! Lt. Gov. Kleefisch; "You could probably talk to philanthropists, church groups..." but your very own government, forget it.

Low income Americans just lost their access to the legal system in Wisconsin, unless some "church group" might come along and help them out, as Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch insultingly suggests. Fat chance.

See you later, victims of domestic violence or in need of a restraining order, those facing foreclosure and those fighting for disability benefits. $2.5 million were cut from the budget, taken from those who's lives depend on these services.

And not surprising, Lt Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch cannot intellectually connect the dots. The money cut has been reallocated, yes, but not to any service that would likely take up the slack as Kleefisch obliviously claims. She is not a deep thinker. I'm not one to care one way or another about the way someone looks, but really, doesn't Kleefisch's beehived prudish, trophy wife Cruella DeVille look, work against her credibility as a lawmaker?

Non-partisan judicial election? A lie. Take the following unintended admission of politicizing the judicial branch by Conservatives.

We've got an activist conservative judge problem...big time.

If this last Supreme Court election didn’t make if perfectly clear how partisan the judicial branch is now, hell Justice David Prosser was a former Republican speaker of the assembly, then the following story should tell you everything. Both candidates were touting their “conservative” credentials, as if law had an assumed, right wing bias.  

jsonline: For the second time in as many years, a judge appointed by Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle was defeated by a candidate who ran on a message of being the more conservative choice backed by prominent Republicans. Judge Kathryn Stilling countered that as a judge, she had shown she was a conservative by applying the law as it was written. 

See, “conservative” and “law and order” are inseparable in the Republican world view. Bizarre when you consider how disrespectful and suspicious conservatives are toward judges, the police and their fellow lawmakers. If they disagree with a judge’s decision, like they did when Judge Sumi held up the union busting bill, that judge shouldn’t have inserted herself into the political process. That action proved she is an liberal activists despite her conservative credentials. Never mind the constitution or state laws.

A year ago, another Doyle appointee to the bench, Richard Congdon, was defeated in his first election by former state Rep. Mark Gundrum, a Republican from New Berlin.

Gundrum was another extremist activist legislator, elected to the bench, by conservative voters more than willing to politicize the judicial branch so they could rub their agenda in the faces of their political foes. 

One Party Law: Republicans Attack Rulings that Question their Authority.

Laws are what we say they are!!!

It's not the first time we've seen a Republican "lawmaker" disrespect the law. Anyone can disagree with a law, debating its merits, but having contempt for those who are in place to uphold those laws is different.

For the self righteous "real Americans" elected into office, this odd dichotomy is meant to be confusing, defaulting to whatever is the one most convenient interpretation of law at the time. Of course I'm talking about the authoritarian Republican mindset revealed day after day in the media.

Here's the latest take-down by State Rep. Robin Vos on a ruling that stops the dismantling of union influence in elections due to a possible open meetings violation:

WRN: State Representative Robin Vos says the court decision is the result of “liberal activist” judges in Dane County, granting the order to an agenda-driven district attorney.
Since Judge Maryann Sumi’s decision Friday, it has come to light that her son is an organizer for the AFL-CIO which Vos says is troubling, “I think the bias is so clear its really disappointing to me that someone who is supposed to uphold the law is willing to bend it, break it, reshape it to satisfy their own personal philosophy.”

Are Dane County judges really "liberal activists?" Does Judge Sumi has a conflict of interest because her son had a union tie once in his past? Can Rep. Vos get away with saying anything he wants by the legion of conservative minded voters who already think everything has a liberal bias? Of course.

Laws are part of the deregulation movement. So get ready, we're headed for "One Party Law," where conservative Humpty Dumpty's will declare laws are what they say they are. Quoting from Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master      that’s all.”

The Cafeteria Cops: Two County Sheriff's Break State Law they Don't Like. What a Fine Example for the Rest of Us.

Showing all the signs of a typical conservative reaction, two sheriff's in Wisconsin have decided not to enforce a law recently passed because...well, they just don't like it. I've noticed this about conservative concealed gun advocates, who carry anyway, because they don't believe in our current Wisconsin law.  

WSJ: Some sheriff’s departments in Wisconsin are ignoring a new racial profiling law ... Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth and Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said filling out the new form, either by hand or on the squad’s computer, takes too long, “Don’t tie up my officers,” said Beth, who along with Schmaling directed their deputies not to comply.

These are law enforcement officials who are NOT enforcing the laws…they don’t like. What does happen to a society when our laws become nothing more than something optional, depending on a person’s whims, especially among those individuals who swore to uphold the law?  

Tami Jackson, spokeswoman for the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA), said while there are no penalties written into the law, there is a procedure in Wisconsin law that allows citizens to order a government official to perform a mandatory duty. If the court gets involved and the officials do not comply, they could be found in contempt.  “It was our expectation that all law enforcement agencies would follow the law and participate regardless of their personal feelings,” she said.

Such actions could come back to haunt them monetarily.

She also noted it could affect departments when they apply for state or federal grants, which sometimes take into consideration whether departments honor such requirements.

Still, if you don’t believe personally in the law itself, who cares.

Schmaling said his deputies followed the new law for three days but it was too time-consuming. “I understand we are not above the law,” he said. “I have a tremendous amount of respect for the law. In fact, I have been sworn to uphold the law. But when it jeopardizes the safety of our deputies in the communities and puts them in harm’s way, we have to take a stance on it.”

Taking a stance is one thing, but breaking the law is inexcusable, especially for our top sheriffs. 

Tom Delay Victim of “Liberal” Justice. Conservative Justice Fairer? Aren't Liberals Easy on Crime?

I just loved this line of reasoning from the Tom Delay:

"I was tried in the most liberal county in the state of Texas; indeed, in the United States," DeLay said on NBC's "Today" Show. "This is a political campaign" (even though) a jury found him guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering … plot to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

A compliant CBS News played along, as if liberal justice is somehow different under actual law.

DeLay's trial was held in Travis County, which includes the state capital of Austin. The county does lean left.

Wow, Travis County leans left. Those weak kneed liberal softies on crime...now they're not? 


If only we could administer law differently, picking a county or state of your choice, depending on its politics…  


Here's Sam Seder with this bizarre Delay story:

Politically motivated, not to mention "Misleading" Statements, Justice Dept. Decides No Prosecution for Attorney Firings.

And so it ends. "Misleading" is now technically not lying in legal terms in the United States. As defined by Wordweb, misleading means: "Designed to deceive or mislead either deliberately or inadvertently …Give false or misleading information to."

As of 2010, misleading, deceiving or giving false information does NOT rise to the level of criminality. Our legal system has really gone into the crapper.

NY Times: A special prosecutor has decided not to bring any criminal charges in connection with the firing of a United States attorney in 2006 … Ms. Dannehy concluded that while the politically motivated firing of Mr. Iglesias violated Justice Department principles, it was not a crime and did not warrant criminal charges. She also concluded that misleading statements made by the former attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, and others at the Justice Department did not rise to the level of a crime, according to a summary of the investigation sent to Congress by the Justice Department.

With our activist state and federal supreme court justices, our federal legal system has also dumbed down and relaxed what we used know as justice. Maybe this is what conservatives mean by freedom and liberty.

Rep. Darrell Issa calls White House Corrupt, calls for Endless Witch-hunts! Remember "Can't We all Look Foward?"-old GOBP quote

Liberal voters, bloggers and think tanks wanted the previous administration investigated and jailed for committing war crimes, violating the constitution and lying America into a war. Issa and his fellow Republicans would love to distract the public away from creating jobs to something much more important, investigating the White House.

Washington Post: The quote is buried in a Politico article about a recent speech Issa gave, in which he revealed he's planning to hire reams of subpoena-wielding investigators as chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if Republicans take back the House.

Now that's backward looking payback! They're so shameless.

John McCain throws out reading Miranda Rights: Cafeteria Constitutionalist!

This is how crazy the news media is about creating a "controversy."

Washington Post headline: "Times Square bombing arrest allows GOP to revive 'Miranda' debate"

"…congressional Republicans wasted no time in reviving the debate on whether to read Miranda rights to a terror suspect. The Miranda issue rose to prominence in the aftermath of the failed attempt to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day."

It's not a debate. It's not up for debate. It's illegal not to read a suspect his Miranda rights.

But the narrative is controlled by the Republican Party because of its "emotional" appeal, and encouraged by the press, who can't seem to get enough of these mindless "controversies."

FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said Shahzad was initially interrogated by the FBI under the "public safety exception to the Miranda rule" and … was later Mirandized … Pistole declined to say how long Shahzad was in custody before he was Mirandized.

The Daily Shows Jon Stewart painfully pointed out how Glenn Beck stood up for the rule of law, while Sen. John McCain stood out as a cafeteria constitutionalist.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), appearing on Don Imus's morning talk show, came out hard against affording Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen, his constitutional rights.

"Obviously that would be a serious mistake ... at least until we find out as much information we have. Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about."

It's not a debate, it's the law you vacuous ass.

Fox News Legal Analyst Pulls Reconciliation Opinions Out of his Ass! Embarrassing!

Want to watch a train wreck?

Fox News was recently leading the charge to rebrand health care reconciliation as the "nuclear option," a term Republicans used in a threat to blow up the filibuster, and in doing so tried to lend credibility to their effort by getting some legal advice from Peter Johnson Jr..

This was like watching Jon Lovitz doing the liar guy on Saturday Night live. What they got instead was Johnson just making it up in the most embarrassing, obvious way, with opinion and analogies that never made sense.

And that's why I'm posting this clip here. Was there ever such an idiot?

It's Done! Justice John Roberts just Politicized the U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared hell bent on radicalizing the highest court by taking on what was typical right wing causes by the bus load, and deciding on them in an ultraconservative way. Remember doing away with 100 years of law banning price fixing? Gone. That was when I knew we were in for trouble.

With the conservatives abhorrence of government, and apologetically creating the Great Recession and politicizing the Justice Department, the supreme court was in their sites and the next branch of government to corrupt. And it has been. Justice Roberts has just primed the pump of outrage, as demonstrated below from the media coverage on Fox News. Sheppard Smith argues honestly with partisan analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.


Napolitano confirmed that Obama was right about what the courts decision will mean in elections, but as you will see later in the clip, Sen. Orin Hatch is claiming just the opposite. And why not, Hatch will grab at any chance to convince a few low information voters that up is down.

Author Marc Thiessen: Classic Authoritarian Jerk!

This is one of the best examples of conservative authoritarianism, on steroids. The Daily Show's Jon Stewart apparently "victimized" Marc Thiessen by refuting some of his cliched arguments over legal representation of detainees. Didn't Stewart know this verbal dueling match should have been Thiessen's one man platform for denouncing the justice department and defending Liz Cheney's frightening "Keeping America Safe" ad.

This is right out of the RNC's PowerPoint presentation to spread fear. See the whole interview here.

Cheney's "Keep America Safe" plays on Terrorist Fears Encouraging More Home Grown Terrorist Government Attackers

Guilt by association! (Cue up the scary music)"Daughter of Dick Cheney" terrorizes the nation with revelations of a fearful federal justice department and the Al Qaeda cell of attorneys waiting for the right moment to"...I don't know what. Rachel Maddow takes the Cheney paranoia and extrapolates...




So how do Republicans defend this blatant scare tactic, outlined in the NRC's recent PowerPoint Presentation to its members, without admitting they were attempting to create more IRS and Pentagon attackers by ramping up government mistrust. Chris Matthews questions Republican strategist Todd Harris, who simply ignores the fearful music and scary shadows, offering a call for full disclosure from the administration. That's all. No ones buying it, including Steve McMahon who calls it what it is, guilt by association.

Hurt Locker Lawsuit an Exercise in Ridiculous.

Look, I checked out Megyn Kelly's new show, after seeing Jon Stewart rip it a new one the other night. What I found was some interesting trashy fun stuff, a specialty of Fox News. First a little background on the story here, "The Hurt Locker" lawsuit.

LA Times is reporting that the producers of "The Hurt Locker" are being dragged to court by Sgt Jeffrey Sarver who claims that characters in the movie are not fictional, but based on him and his three-man team of bomb squad technicians.

I had to post this because it was really bizarre, ridiculous and funny. Defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh is one clever guy.

Throwing Taxpayer Money Away on Failed "Tough on Crime" Policies Okay for Rep. Scott Suder. At Least We Don't have to Spend it on Public Schools.

Tough on crime, budget blasting "truth in sentencing" Republicans can't defend spending taxpayer money on punishment anymore, so they're now resorting to scare tactics. Talk of early release is still off the table for them. What else would explain Republican fear monger Scott Suder's recent statement on WPT's Here and Now,

"This is a dangerous social experiment, doom to failure, and it puts the public at risk."

Oh my god, we're all going to die!

Yet when Republicans pushed truth in sentencing, they took the discretion of the judge away, and instead let elected government bureaucrats decide punishments. But in the usual Republican flip-flop, trying to have it both ways, Rep. Suder now complains early release will be decided by government bureaucrats. Huh?

"These are not judges, these are not prosecutors...in fact judges and prosecutors aren't even consulted...unelected bureaucrats letting prisoners go, again...is letting them out the door."

Rebutting the Suder panic attack, State Dept. of Corrections Sec. Rick Raemisch reminded Suder that as a former four term Dane Co. Sheriff, street cop, narcotics dectective, assistant U.S. Attorney and Dane Co. D.A. he might know what he's doing when determining who gets released:

"So I guess this particular bureaucrat has the expertise to do that. And plus, Dept. of Corrections officers are experts in the field. Nobody spends more time with these inmates than us...we see there progress, we see their failures."

Tight Wad Republican AG Van Hollen Wants More Money for His Department or He'll "protect the public less."

If you can't walk the walk…

All of a sudden Wisconsin Republicans have come to the realization that their "tough on crime, one-upmanship policies, are draining state taxpayer money away from everything else, adding to the deficit.

Missing the irony of his own tough on crime campaign rhetoric, Wisconsin's top law enforcement Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen told Wispolitics.com:

“If we undertook the requirements of that bill (OWI and DNA changes) without resources to back it up, it could paralyze the Department of Justice, and it could create backlogs that are insurmountable.”

No kidding, J.B.? Republican lawmakers were screaming bloody murder when the governor and Democratic legislature decided to ease up on truth and sentencing for rehabilitation and early releases for non-violent offenders due to the huge budget deficit.

It'll be interesting to see if the state GOP, the Grand Opportunist Party, will try to have it both ways in the 2010 midterms in the hope no one notices.

In fact, check out the following statement and tell me if any Democrat could get away with saying what Van Hollen does here:

"We can protect the public hopefully more because of this OWI legislation, but in some other category, unfortunately, we'll have to perhaps protect the public less."

"Unfortunately, we'll have to protect the public less!"...Can you imagine what the conservative radio talk hosts would do with that statement?

Republican Robin Vos Tough on Drunk Drivers, Tougher still on Ways to Pay for New Law.

As you might recall, Republicans are now saying that liberal policies are at fault for expensive tough on crime policies that are draining state coffers, and not their own testosterone driven authoritarian need to discipline. They also made sure Democrats looked soft on crime during elections. Now that states have come to their senses, realizing public services and education are now taking a back seat to prisons and truth in sentencing laws, Republicans are appear confused over which talking point to use, the old or the new.

On WPT's Here and Now, state Democratic Representative Mark Pocan explains the difficulty in paying for stricter OWI laws that will somehow stay revenue neutral. But when Republican Rep. Robin Vos praises the tougher rules, he trips himself up by complaining the laws should have been even tougher, and thus costlier, yet impossibly cheaper. No wonder Republicans ran the country into the ground. My head is hurting.



When asked where he would find other ways to pay for the tougher OWI law, Vos actually complained about a minor jump in fines for those caught driving drunk because many don't pay or can't afford it. So after saying he would have made the penalties tougher, he had no alternative way to pay for it. And that's having it both ways, if he can get away with it.

"Tough on Crime" Republicans Blame Liberals for Out of Control Criminal Justice System. HUH?

In one of the biggest switcheroos, flip flops, reversals or takebacks, the tough on crime Republicans are now saying just the opposite. In fact, they are blaming liberals for their own tough on crime, lock 'em up, throw away the key mistake. NY Times:

In the next several months, the Supreme Court will decide at least a half-dozen cases about the rights of people accused of crimes involving drugs, sex and corruption.

Get this, there is now:

…an emerging consensus on the right that the criminal justice system is an aspect of big government that must be contained. The development represents a sharp break with tough-on-crime policies associated with the Republican Party since the Nixon administration.

Edwin Meese III, who was known as a fervent supporter of law and order as attorney general in the Reagan administration, now spends much of his time criticizing what he calls the astounding number and vagueness of federal criminal laws. Mr. Meese once referred to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of the “criminals’ lobby.”

It is utterly jaw dropping how Meese spins the GOP's "tough on crime" image used to defeat Democrats, as a liberal Democratic problem. It's masterful and completely deranged:

These days, he said, “in terms of working with the A.C.L.U., if they want to join us, we’re happy to have them.” In an interview at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group where he is a fellow, Mr. Meese said the “liberal ideas of extending the power of the state” were to blame for an out-of -control criminal justice system. “Our tradition has always been,” he said, “to construe criminal laws narrowly to protect people from the power of the state.”

So truth in sentencing, the removal of letting judges decide how the law is carried out, is a liberal idea? Locking people up who aren't a danger to the community is a liberal problem? Building more prisons and longer sentences is a liberal idea? The idea that rehabilitation is soft on crime is a liberal idea? Not only are Republicans rewriting history, they're rewriting a 60 year party platform.

Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason, a libertarian magazine. “The more vocal presence of conservatives on over criminalization issues is really what’s new.”

Remember it was always crazy for Democrats to promote rehabilitation, that was for wimps:

Some religious groups object to prison policies that appear to ignore the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption, and fiscal conservatives are concerned about the cost of maintaining the world’s largest prison population.

Some scholars are skeptical about conservatives’ timing and motives, noting that their voices are rising during a Democratic administration and amid demands for accountability for the economic crisis. Meese acknowledged that the current climate was not the ideal one for his point of view. “We picked by accident a time,” he said, “when it was not a very popular topic in light of corporate frauds.”

O'Keefe Justifies Breaking Law Video Taping ACORN Workers to Protect Fictional Child Prostitutes!

If you think you have a good reason to break the law, then it's okay to do so, because you're doing the right thing. This is part of the philosophical platform of patriotic anti-government conservatives.

Not only has Rachel Maddow pointed out how unjustified the attacks on ACORN have been, including the politicization of the Justice Department to go after them, but the illegal videotaping of a few bad employees got a media pass on Fox News. Media Matters begs to differ on the "facts:"

"On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace helped videographer James O'Keefe defend his dwindling credibility by advancing several of O'Keefe's claims without noting that they are contradicted by readily available evidence."



"Wallace suggested that O'Keefe "denies reports" by Media Matters that O'Keefe, in Wallace's words, "got any money from conservative backers" -- without noting that the evidence Media Matters highlighted consisted of public statements by conservatives that they had funded O'Keefe in the past or planned to raise money for O'Keefe and his partner, Hannah Giles, in the future.

Wallace ignored a September 22 Village Voice report that the spokesperson for conservative investor Peter Thiel acknowledged that Thiel had contributed "about $10,000" to an earlier video that O'Keefe released in February 2009. As Media Matters noted, The Village Voice reported that Thiel's spokesperson denied that Thiel had "any involvement with the ACORN videos." [The Village Voice, 9/22/09]"