Comments on: Will Supreme Court take blockbuster “John Doe” campaign case?

By: Sammy Finkelman

Sammy Finkelman — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:50:28 +0000

Hillary Clinton has endorsed amending the constitution to make it possible to make the kind of “co-ordination” Scott Walker is accused of, illegal (and presumably investigations like this legal as well)

By: DINORightMarie

DINORightMarie — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:34:38 +0000

This NRO article, at the link below, is a good, fairly concise (though long) explanation both of the “John Doe” process in WI and some of the horrible fallout and injustices suffered due to this specific “John Doe” case. (This supplementary to the Professor’s many blog posts on the topic – see the link at the bottom of his post for those.)

Hope this helps: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

By: MarkS

MarkS — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:25:17 +0000

This is just another illustration of the fanciful notion of citizens in this country that they have rights.

By: MarkS

MarkS — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:22:03 +0000

Yeah, he’ll make up his “mind” right after Obama tells him what to do.

By: MattMusson

MattMusson — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:46:39 +0000

It’s a tax.
/s

By: Ragspierre

Ragspierre — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:36:32 +0000

“How…could it possibly be legal to tell someone they cannot contact an attorney and cannot speak…”

Well, I am a legal mongrel, and I don’t see any possible way for that to be legal.

The concept, I guess, stems for the idea that the good guys want to prevent the bad guys involved in a major criminal conspiracy from warning others, or synchronizing their alibis. Criminal attorneys (but I repeat myself) sometimes are used as conduits in such matters.

Still, I don’t see how this EVER saw the light of day…or the darkness of night. This is just gobsmacking.

And, as I’ve written earlier, I would have cheerfully violated the orders, and hard.

By: n.n

n.n — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:33:50 +0000

If they considered “Citizens United” under the First Amendment, and abortion rights under the same (with a liberal dose of amorality and fantasy), then they should obviously consider “Jon Doe” under the Fourth Amendment. The Wisconsin Democrats clearly violated American citizens rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. For one, we are at war with international terrorists under an international, left-wing ideology, not American conservatives under The Constitution.

By: Subotai Bahadur

Subotai Bahadur — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:32:36 +0000

Expecting the Supreme Court to accept a case where they might have to rule against the Democrats and uphold the law and Constitution, and then to do so is to hope for too much. It was amazing that they took the current Obamacare case and the pretzel that they will have to twist themselves into to protect Obamacare yet again is going to be truly impressive [if disgusting].

By: Ken_LI

Ken_LI — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:30:26 +0000

Maybe the delay is being caused by John Roberts switching sides again.

By: stevewhitemd

stevewhitemd — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:29:55 +0000

Because the Wisconsin “John Doe” forbade them to do those things on pain of substantial penalty.

The real questions are 1) how on earth the Wisconsin legislature wrote such a law (answer: it was controlled by Democrats) and 2) how on earth a prosecutor would think such a law is moral and just (answer: he’s a Democrat).

By: JoAnne

JoAnne — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:56:14 +0000

Will one of you legal beagles please explain the “John Doe” thing to me? How in Heaven’s name could it possibly be legal to tell someone they cannot contact an attorney and cannot speak of having jack booted thugs batter in their door, terrorize their children and animals, search and seize, all over campaign communications? I just don’t understand…

By: Wisewerds

Wisewerds — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:51:22 +0000

What this means is that the Supreme Court denied certiorari, but there will be a written dissent from that decision. At least that’s my guess.