Showing posts with label Republican Brad Schimel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Brad Schimel. Show all posts

Jun 11, 2016

Citizens' Weak Demand of Government Policy, Favored Interests' Strong Demand

 North Dakota Corporate Dairy and Swine Farming Referendum
There is a mission-critical defect in the United States democracy.

The problem is what economists, sociologists and political scientists call the "demand constraint."

The demand constraint is the ideologically-imposed inability of the great masses of the citizenry to demand social arrangements and governmental policies, in accordance with their rights, will, safety and happiness.

The corporate sector has no such constraint.

The corporate sector places its demands on the government and society, attacking any disparity between government policy and corporations' drive to maximize their own wealth as the measure on which the very legitimacy of the government depends.

If the corporate sector inflicts costs onto society, communities and governments are expected by the corporate sector to pay those costs and make policy which codifies this expectation.

Governmental subsidies are also demanded by the corporate sector.

Corporate decision makers don't care who carries out their policies. There is always a Scott Walker (Wisconsin's governor in title), a Brad Schimel, (Wisconsin's attorney general in title), or Robin Vos, (Wisconsin's state Assembly Speaker in title), a Republican on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for example, or a Hillary Clinton around.

What corporations do demand is 'public' officials who take orders. That say a Scott Walker holds delusions that metaphysical deities "call" Walker to work for corporate interests is of no concern.

Even as the corporations become ever more brazen and ambitious to transform America into a colonial entity in which the masses work as servants to corporate power, the demand constraint on many Americans persists. A related demand constraint exists among the professional class: Speaking for the masses is perceived as bad business.

When political candidates like Bernie Sanders, for example, start demanding that social and governmental institutions restructure for the common wealth of the great masses of people, corporate pay-masters, corporate media, and corporate servants become hostile to a Bernie Sanders.

They brand Sanders' platform some combination of unrealistic, unattainable, and unAmerican, even going to far as to red-bait Sanders.

Seen in this light, it becomes easier to understand why even water and air are treated as tools of corporate America to satisfy corporate interests. Unhealthy and dangerous water and air are costs that rightfully, in corporate America's view, society should pay.

That air and water are needed for citizens and other life to survive and thrive is of no importance.

North Dakota Corporate Dairy and Swine Farming Referendum

On Tuesday, June 14, North Dakota will hold a state referendum, the North Dakota Corporate Dairy and Swine Farming Referendum that if passed will facilitate corporate American agribusiness.

Stopping corporate factory farms would be a significant victory, as such a win would demonstrate North Dakota citizens need not internalize demand constraints. In sum, they are demanding North Dakota works for the people.

This is not a high-profile election. It should be.

Pro-family farmer, pro-sustainability, clean water and air, and responsible North Dakotans want a No vote. See the Dakota Resource Council, and the North Dakota Farmers Union.

Corporate and polluting ag operations want a Yes vote.

Stay tuned for the results of the June 14 North Dakota election, and how clean water and clean air guarantees, and community-based solutions are addressed in the general presidential election featuring Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton against Jill Stein, Gary Bauer, and Donald Trump.

Nov 24, 2015

Walker, GOP's Anti-Choice Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican Party legislators fooled many Wisconsin citizens with their 2013 Act 37 to stop a woman's choice to an abortion, but the federal judges in the Seventh Circuit ridiculed the anti-abortion intent and effect of the law from its inception, and ruled it unconstitutional.

Yesterday, a three-judge panel upheld U.S. District Judge's William Conley's 2013 opinion concluding the GOP-imposed law is "motivated by an improper purpose, namely to restrict the availability of abortion services in Wisconsin," (Bice, Spivak, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

The case is Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin et al v. Attorney General Brad Schimel (N0 15-1736). Orals were heard October 1, 2015.

Schimel is a Republican who performs political work in the legal arena for the Scott Walker administration.

Writes Judge Richard Posner for the three-judge panel (with rightwing Judge Daniel Manion dissenting):

There are those who would criminalize all abortions, thus terminating the constitutional right asserted in Roe and Casey and a multitude of other decisions. And there are those who would criminalize all abortions except ones that terminate a pregnancy caused by rape or are necessary to protect the life or (in some versions) the health of the pregnant woman. But what makes no sense is to abridge the constitutional right to an abortion on the basis of spurious contentions regarding women’s health—and the abridgment challenged in this case would actually endanger women’s health. It would do that by reducing the number of abortion doctors in Wisconsin, thereby increasing the waiting time for obtaining an abortion, and that increase would in turn compel some women to defer abortion to the second trimester of their pregnancy—which the studies we cited earlier find to be riskier than a first-trimester abortion. For abortions performed in the first trimester the rate of major complications is 0.05-0.06 percent (that is, between five one-hundredths of 1 percent and six one-hundredths of 1 percent. It is 1.3 percent for second-trimester abortions between 22 and 26 times higher. [p.23]

Notes Posner on Republican end-around and disingenuous legislative initiatives to halt the Constitutionally protected women's' choice to choose to have an abortion:

A great many Americans, including a number of judges, legislators, governors, and civil servants, are passionately opposed to abortion—as they are entitled to be. But persons who have a sophisticated understanding of the law and of the Supreme Court know that convincing the Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is a steep uphill fight, and so some of them proceed indirectly, seeking to discourage abortions by making it more difficult for women to obtain them. They may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet as in this case the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion. [pp 24.25]

Concluded Posner: "[I]t is apparent that the defendants have failed to make a dent in the district court's opinion granting the permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs." [pp 28, 29]

Roe, (upheld in Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey (1992)), is a landmark case acknowledging the personal, "fundamental" right to liberty and privacy (against state action) individual women retain in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Oct 2, 2015

Scott Walker, GOP Deny Their Anti-choice Views in Court, Public Statements

The effect, "purpose" and "intent" of Scott Walker's TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law is to shut down access to abortion in Wisconsin.

Judges Richard Posner and David Hamilton note these facts in a hearing yesterday at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, (hear the audio), and are dismissive of Walker, Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) (who sat in the audience) and the Republican Party of Wisconsin's pretensions to the contrary.

The case is (15-1736) Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad D. Schimel, heard October 1, 2015.

Wisconsin Act 37 (2013) is designed to stop abortions, a law in the words of Judge Posner that represents a "clear flaunting of Roe v. Wade."

Roe, (upheld in Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey (1992)), is a landmark case acknowledging the personal, "fundamental" right to liberty and privacy (against state action) individual women retain in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Walker and the extremist Republican Party—which enacted this law with unanimous GOP support and against unanimous Democratic Party opposition—know most Americans want individual women to make the choice to bear a child, and not Republican-led state governments.

So Walker and Republicans pretend to the position abortion should be left between a woman and her doctor, while enacting laws such as Wisconsin Act 37 crafted to stop abortion.

Judge Posner actually cited Walker's public statements in the hearing, noting Walker's public stances against abortion in all cases, even in cases to save the life of a mother, speaking to the intent of the law (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Walker through his spokeswoman denied his own anti-choice view:

Spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said Posner was wrong about Walker's views.

'The appropriate role of a judge is to make decisions based on the rule of law, rather than to insert inflammatory political commentary,' she said in an email. (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).
A 2013 restraining order against the Republican-enacted law remains in effect. And Roe and Casey remain the law of the land, protecting women again undue burdens such as Walker's TRAP law heard at the hearing.

Meanwhile Republicans across the nation, including all major Republican candidates for the presidency continue their stance the state and not women should make the decision on whether women bear children.

Mar 19, 2015

Wisconsin's Trial Run for New Law, Verdict Is In: Lives Are Cheap

Updated - The New York Times has a piece on the new Wisconsin law mandating outside agencies investigate cases of police shootings.

Erik Ljung has a video with the Times piece with compelling footage of community outrage against recent police killings of Paul Heenan (Schenider, The Capital Times) and Tony Terrell Robinson Jr. in Madison, Michael Bell in Kenosha (2004), and Dontre Hamilton in Milwaukee (Luthern, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; Mal Contends).

Killer cops in Madison, the most liberal city, notes Paul Gottinger in CounterPunch.

Writes Gottinger:
Since 1976 there has been 1,403 people convicted of a crime, sentenced to the death penalty, and then executed. This number is only slightly larger than the number of Americans killed by cops LAST YEAR ALONE.

Imagine if ISIS, or Black gangs were killing at this scale. What would the country’s reaction be?

Now we’re told to wait for the investigation of Robinson’s murder by the Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigation.
Acclaimed former Madison Police Chief David Couper (ret) has been writing about the police assaulting the citizenry as enemies residing in the occupied territories for decades. Stop the Killing—Now, writes Couper in a particularly incensed recent piece.

Blind faith in outside law enforcement investigators (the Wisconsin Department of Justice led by a Republican with a history of corrupt political action) gathering evidence on police killings is what we have now.

Considering the investigation into the police killing of Tony Robinson under 2013 Wisconsin Act 348, why not a new law mandating an investigative agency with subpoena power composed of civil liberty activists, retired law professors, legal journalists and other academics?

The reason is murderous police would not stand a chance.

Being Police gives police a license to kill, and prosecutors a (qualified) license to lie.

The Times piece asks: "As this Times video explains, it would be the first case to test how effective the new law is. Could it help provide a new faith in the justice system?"

No, no faith.

The law, 2013 Wisconsin Act 348, the Times cites is indeed on trial, but the verdict is in.

There won't be a prosecution.

Don't blame Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne for this, Ozanne can't make up evidence that won't be presented to his office.
 
The law needs to be expanded and police killings considered in an objective sphere of justice and truth.

The Wisconsin DoJ will present the results of its investigation into the Tony Robinson killing within two weeks.

Consider that Wisconsin and the nation will never get the facts from the tainted Wisconsin DoJ whom adults know are playing politics every bit as much as 'law enforcement' in what passes for a criminal justice system.

In America, lives and liberty are cheap in the eyes of police and The Prosecutor, as the jurist Robert Jackson noted some 75 years ago.

Mar 14, 2015

Stop the Killing, Pleads Police Chief David Couper

Madison, Wisconsin Police Chief
David Couper (ret)
Been reading Madison, Wisconsin Police Chief David Couper (ret) for some time, and I have never discerned such pain in his prose in his extensive commentary on policing.

"Stop killing the unarmed must be your first step — review your policies, review your training, review the tools of force you use, review your attitudes about people — listen to your hearts — you know this must stop," writes Couper. "I firmly believe that if today’s police officers look at this problem they will come to understand that the first step forward to restore trust and support of those whom they serve is to stop using deadly force on those who are unarmed."

His latest piece from Improving Police is reproduced below:

By David Couper

Looking back through a half-century of policing, the turmoil of the anti-war and civil rights years, the integration of women, people of color, and those with differing sexual orientations into our ranks, the excitement of putting into practice the new and exciting concepts of problem-oriented policing, getting close to, and working with, the people we served, and being able, from time to time to remain above the occasional and embarrassing times we were sullied by the graft, corruption, false testimonies and excessive force by fellow officers, I must say that the situation we and our nation’s police find ourselves in today is a new low.

Maybe it has been caused by the explosion of smart phones and social media, maybe people are not as respectful to police as they were in the past, but maybe it’s because police are taking the lives of too many people who are unarmed. The impact of this on our nation is enormous.

Is it a trend? We don’t know because police departments in our nation are not required to report these shootings. They are voluntary and some cities simply do not report.

Policing in America is at a tipping point. The number of police killings may be important, but the fact is that one mistake, one young person's life extinguished in circumstances many people think is outright wrong is one too many.

What can police do? The first step is to stop the killing. Yes, I am being harsh especially to those of you who, with great control in your own use of force, selflessly serve. But you know that policing is a field in which the behavior of a few impact your ability to do a good job and be trusted.

Stop killing the unarmed must be your first step — review your policies, review your training, review the tools of force you use, review your attitudes about people — listen to your hearts — you know this must stop.

The task of policing is a learning and teaching adventure about the proper handling of people. It is 90% relational and 10% coercive. I firmly believe that if today’s police officers look at this problem they will come to understand that the first step forward to restore trust and support of those whom they serve is to stop using deadly force on those who are unarmed. And coming to that understanding, and with the help of their communities, they can make the necessary changes and share the improvement steps they are taking with their communities.

If they [do] less, they will have failed to rebuild the trust that is absolutely necessary between police and citizens in a free society — and they must do it now!

Mar 13, 2015

Wisconsin's DoJ Probe on Tony Robinson Killing Offers Blind Faith

David S. Matthews, Administrator of
the Division of Criminal Investigation is
leading the investigation of the killing of
Tony Robinson, 19-years-old
Update II: See Madland: The criminal justice system is broken and black men pay the price (Talaga, Isthmus)

Update: WISC News: "The Dane County Medical Examiner says 19-year-old Tony Robinson suffered firearm trauma to his head, torso and right arm."

Just had to shoot this young man to death, right? White police shooting young, black men to death, a common occurrence in the United States, provokes outrage but not surprise.
 ---
Updated: The Wisconsin Attorney General is Republican Brad Schimel, former district attorney of Waukesha County (R-White People) and a dedicated partisan who was elected last year on a campaign devoid of civil rights activists and criminal justice reformists.

Schimel leads the Wisconsin Department of Justice.

During Schimel's predecessor's tenure the DoJ became so deeply immersed in partisan activity any semblance of trust in its objectivity was destroyed.

In the investigation into the police killing of Tony Robinson under 2013 Wisconsin Act 348, Brad Schimel's election changes nothing.

Former attorney general J.B. Van Hollen is gone, replaced by Schimel earlier this year.

No organization headed by a Wisconsin Republican these days, especially the DoJ, brings to Wisconsin citizens cause for trust.

Heading up the investigation into the police killing of Tony Robinson is not a civil rights activist, a turgid UW-Madison law professor, investigators from the Innocence Project, or an investigative counsel like a modern-day John Doar, Bill Dixon or Hillary Clinton.

The man in charge of providing answers to the Robinson family, friends and Wisconsin is: David S. Matthews, Administrator of the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI).

Matthews was appointed to his current position by Van Hollen in 2012.

Matthews is an Air Force veteran, does not have a law degree or from looking at his public profile any experience in civil rights work or much interest in the liberal arts.

The DCI, charged with investigating the killing, is described by Anne E. Schwartz, Director of Communications and Public Affairs of the Wisconsin Department of Justice as a "division of full-time, sworn, professional, veteran law enforcement investigators," in an email.

Veteran law enforcement investigators investigating a killing by a veteran law enforcement officer. The whole point of Act 348 is to have objective, external investigations into police-involved shootings.

Trust is all the Wisconsin people have to go on in this matter, and if truth be the objective, trust in these matters in Wisconsin is for fools.

Black Lives Matter, in Wisconsin not so much