Comments on: Supreme Court roundup

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 03:32:34 +0000

In reply to David C.

@David–
Thanks for the update. It looks like a thoughtful bill that would address the political abuses we have heard about.

By: David C

David C — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:40:58 +0000

In reply to Hugo S. Cunningham.

@Hugo: There’s a current proposed bill that would limit, but not eliminate, John Doe proceedings. Looks like it would limit the secrecy orders too, to mostly apply to only the prosecuting side.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/sb43

By: David C

David C — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:24:31 +0000

I can’t say I particularly enjoy the “freedom” to be forced into an arbitration clause just to do business with a company. If it were up to me these “agreements” would actually have to be agreed on and could never be imposed as a condition of sale. But it’s not up to me, and the Arbitration Act does exist. Unless the courts want to actually find it unconstitutional they should abide by it.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:15:21 +0000

Concerning Wisconsin’s persecution of the “press” (mass dissemination of political speech), aka the Red Dawn scandal–
I thought Scott Walker and the Republican legislature won the last election. Why haven’t they repealed the authority of DAs to conduct “John Doe” investigations in political cases? The same repealer legislation could include text directing Federal Courts’ notice to the abuse of political prosecutions in Wisconsin and inviting them, for the future, to intervene at an early stage against any recurrence.