Judicial Conservatism : What a Fraud!

In Below v. Norton, the alleged judicial conservatives, (Crooks, Roggansack, Prosser, and Ziegler) held that the judge-made economic loss doctrine bars intentional fraud claims--tort claims that have been recognized in Wisconsin since the late 1800s.

Below involved a residential real estate transaction where the buyer alleged that the seller falsely represented the condition of the property (a sewer line was not connected the property). The buyers alleged that the sellers knew that the sewer line was not connected and intentionally withheld this information from the buyers.

Apparently, our friendly judicial "conservatives" don't believe lying is wrong. The majority held that a home buyer cannot bring a tort claim against a seller when the seller has intentionally misrepresented the condition of the home.

A scathing dissent by Justice Bradley followed:

According to the majority, a person selling a home can look the buyer in the eye, lie about the condition of the home, and escape legal consequences in tort for the lie because of the economic loss doctrine.

Surely, our conservative justices must have felt compelled to reach this result because of nationwide case law, or even hornbook law . . . but no:

Wisconsin has the dubious distinction of being the only state in the entire country to have expanded this judicially created doctrine in such a fashion. The majority has taken a doctrine that originally applied in a very narrow context——commercial transactions for products under warranty——and has now used it to prevent homebuyers from recovering damages in tort caused by the misrepresentations of fraudulent sellers.

Remember the judicial "conservatives" often defend their decisions by claiming "we apply the law, we don't make it." In fact, this was the platform on which Judge Gabelman ran. From Judge Gableman's own website:

Lawmaking should be left to the legislative and executive branches. I believe that justice comes from administering the law with an understanding that its source is the consent of the governed, not one’s one personal ideology

Yet, our "conservative" justices did not adhere to Gablelman's philosophy. According to Justice Bradley:

Contrary to its protestation, the majority is not compelled to reach this unfortunate result. No legislature enacted a law compelling this conclusion. The majority is applying its own judge-made doctrine.

Wow! Justice Bradley--one of those alleged judicial activists on the Court--telling the conservatives that they need to administer the law instead of making it.

I wonder . . . will Charlie Sykes denounce this decision? I doubt it, his ex-wife started us on this path. Will the Shark denounce Wisconsin's so-called conservative justices? Will WMC now support Justice Abrahamson in next year's election for refusing to partake in this judicial activism? Or, is judicial activism all a matter of politics?

Cheers,

Confession: Catholicism's Greatest Sacrament

Apparently, not all of the sex in chuch involves the clergy. An Italian couple was caught copulating in a confessional. I think it must have been the "oh my god" prayers that gave them away.

Cheers

My type of Judicial Conservative

The LA Times had this piece about Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--a Regan appointed judicial conservative with a national reputation as a brilliant legal mind. Apparently, Justice Kozinski has quite the taste in pornography:

The sexually explicit material on Kozinski's site earlier this week was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.

Another report noted

"the material was on a home server that was maintained "for use by his family" and that it made up only a "small percentage" of the items, which also included pictures and documents of "personal family interest."

What a family man. Unfortunatly, our judicial conservative, family values Judge has now limited access to his website. Such a pity, I was hoping to find the video for two girls one cup.

If this is what judicial conservatives are doing on the web, I am really curious to see what might be contained in the emails that Justice-elect Gableman refuses to release.

Cheers.

The ultimate in Irony

It seems that a couple of gold diggers have lost their own gold. A homeless man listed posing as a millionaire subscribed to a dating service where women can meet millionaire men. The women were then swindled out of their own money by false investment opportunities.

While unfortunate, it begs the question: how much money were these gold diggers hoping to get from a millionaire boy friend? perhaps A few fancy dinners, some jewelry, and some nice vacations. Tricks on them.

Cheers.

Gay Marriage, Why the Outrage?

This week the California Supreme Court legalized gay marraige. Gay rights activists cheered and conservatives claim judicial activism.

Civil Union is a fancy term for "seperate but equal." Thus, I see no logical reason or constitutional reason for upholding a ban on gay marriage. Further, I fail to see why some conservatives are upset. If your not gay how does banning gay marriage help you? Is your own marriage so insecure that it would be weakned if Adam and Steve tied the knot? So for the objectors, what's the harm? How is this any different from laws which banned inter-racial marriage?

One of the arguments for banning gay marriage is that it will be a slipperly slope, which will lead to polygamy. This argument ignores that the slippery slope would work both ways. If we are only going to permit marriage for procreation purposes do we not also have to ban marriage for individuals that are unable to procreate?

In the secular sense, marriage is a contractual matter. As a believer in the free market, I can think of no reason to distrub parties' abilty to enter into contracts. That State's obligation is to view and recognize the Marriage Contract.

Obama's 57 States of America

Blogasphere is all aghast about Obama's statements that he had been to 57 states. Obviously, he misspoke. While I won't be voting for Obama, I can find more substantive faults with his candidacy than a speaking error. Heck, I voted for a bumbling idiot twice. Besides most of the people criticizing him, don't even know the correct number of states in this country?

If you answered 50, you are wrong.

There are 46 states. Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are not States--they are Commonwealths.


Cheers

McAdams: Roe Supporter?

The good professor authored this piece, which discussed racial disparity in prison sentencing. McAdams came to the conclusion that "Incarceration is good." In fact, he states

University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, for example, says that increased imprisonment is one of the reasons crime decreased sharply in the 1990s:

[T]he increase in incarceration over the 1990s can account for a reduction in crime of approximately 12 percent for the first two categories [homicide and violent crime] and 8 percent for property crime, or about one-third of the observed decline in crime.

I find it curious that McAdams would use Levitt's arguments to make his point because it takes him to places he probably does not want to go.

Steven Levitt is the author of the book Freakonomics. In chapter 4 of the book, Levitt also attributes the decrease in crime to abortion. In fact, Levitt has authored a separate paper on the subject. Levitt concludes that if incarceration is good for decreasing crime and saving costs to society, abortion is even better.

How do you feel about your argument now, Associate Professor?

Cheers.