Judges shouldn’t invent laws unless it helps the Republican Party in some meaningful way, apparently. Then it’s sensible jurisprudence.
By now you’ve all heard about the ruling in a GOP-friendly Waukesha court that will force the GAB to exceed their statutory authority. Judge J. Mac Davis ordered the GAB to check all the signatures despite the clear letter-of-the-law which contradicts him. Marquette Law Professor Edward A. Fallone writes,
One merely has to read the statute as a whole. For example, Section 9.10(2)(g) states “[t]he burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge.”
If the selective parsing of the statutory language argued by the plaintiffs in this case, and adopted by Judge Davis, sounds familiar, it should be. It is eerily reminiscent of the woeful misreading of the statutory provisions governing the publication of new laws that was argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald. In this instance, the legislature has made a policy choice as to the appropriate procedures in a recall election. If that choice appears unwise or outdated, then the correct remedy is to seek new legislation. Instead, the Friends of Scott Walker encouraged Judge Davis to employ the words “careful examination” as a Trojan horse in order to substitute a different policy choice. That is not the role of the judiciary.
When you elect former Republican Party hacks to the bench, you get Republican Party hack rulings. Why is this so hard to understand? Why is anyone even surprised???