Plaisted Rants, But What is He Saying?

Mike Plaisted posted a bitter tirade today, castigating most everyone who disagrees with him (other than his "crying" clients). Of course, all of us who do not share his same world view are "classless," "wing-nuts," "childish," "devious greed-heads," "deceitful" and "racist." I will respond to Plaisted's diatribe in the same way I responded to the so-called Conservative who called me a "tard." Whatever.

But in the midst of all of that vitriol, what is Plaisted saying? Plaisted fails to define "independent;" however, he makes clear that the judiciary is only "independent" when it is liberal. If judges are supported by liberal groups, they are independent. If they are supported by conservative groups, they lack independence. Interesting concept.

Plaisted seems to suggest that a judge is independent when she or he is "someone who they could not predict." Funny, I always understood that laws are sets of rules to be applied uniformly. I thought good judges were predictable. In fact, I thought the Supreme Court was established to ensure that laws are interpreted in a consistent manner throughout the state (aka predictability). Little did I know that an independent judiciary is one that operates like the Wheel of Fortune - you have an equal chance of big money or bankruptcy, all depending on how hard you spin the wheel. I thought Crticial Legal Studies and Indeterminism were long ago roundly debunked.

Plaisted implies that the Court is the place that should look out for the little guy, rather than being a place that looks out for everyone equally. He fails to explain the basis for that concept in our Constitution or our statutes.

I should probably admit that I am a practicing lawyer. I have been one for 20 years. At times, admitting my profession is a hard thing to do. While the Wisconsin Supremes have elevated the role of lawyers in our society by making the rules more illusory, it has simultaneously diminished the respect afforded the profession by letting shyters get away with murder.

Plaisted, like most lawyers and liberals, believes that the Court makes the rules, and that people are better off if the Court shapes those rules to provide "justice" under specific fact scenarios, rather than understanding that true justice involves predictability and consistency.

If the little guys who "come crying" to Plaisted do not like those predictable rules, they should direct their complaints to their elected legislators. Those legislators can then make other rules that resolve the crying clients' complaints. (Oh that's right, Plaisted represents criminals - not many legislators change the law for their benefit.)

Somehow, Plaisted missed the part of civics that explained that legislators legislate and the judiciary interprets.

The bottom line is that Plaisted is upset that a predictable judiciary is not as susceptible to manipulation as one that concerns itself with mundane concepts like codes and precedence.