By Jeff Simpson
The latest in far right extremist candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court is Brian Hagedorn. Hagedorn, as typically the case with Republican Supreme Court candidates, feels that our friends in
the LGBTQ Community are less than human.
The revelations come after an exhaustive review by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of a blog Hagedorn kept from April 2005 to August 2006 called “Anno Domini” (Latin for “in the year of our Lord”). In it, Hagedorn, an evangelical Christian, complained that the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law would lead to the legalization of bestiality.
“The idea that homosexual behavior is different than bestiality as a constitutional matter is unjustifiable,” he wrote in October 2005.
“There is no right in our Constitution to have sex with whoever or whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (or barn),” he also wrote.
Hagedorn also talked about complaining to his supervisor at the law firm for which he worked at the time about their posting supportive images and stories from LGBTQ people during Pride month. “What was being sold was not tolerance, but homosexual propaganda,” Hagedorn wrote on his blog. “Moreover, this served to create a hostile work environment for Christians. In the end, I was told too bad.”
Yes if that sounds familiar, if by some horrible event that allows Caveman Hagedorn to get elected to the Supreme Court, one can imagine he,
Rebecca Bradley and
Julianne Appling, eating wafers, drinking little cups of cheap red wine and watching old sermons of
George Alan Rekers in the old offices of Prosser and Gableman.
Ok lets scrub that and get to the topic at hand.
Now back to the topic at hand. The Republican Apology Machine.
It is almost like these occurrences are daily and they have a plan in place to handle these regular occurrences. It is called WILL - Wisconsin Law and Liberty, the anti education, Republican apology machine
, that makes up "studies" and their head honcho Rick Esenberg.
Esenberg gained notoriety, when it came out that he agreed to testify, under oath, that the maps that the Republicans drew in private,
were Constitutional, site unseen.
Esenberg is the Founder and President of Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty(WILL) :
An old military adage calls for the cavalry to “ride to the sound of the guns.” As a tactic, it has both its strengths and weaknesses. As a sentiment, it is a call for courageous engagement. At the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, we hope to answer that call. Through education, litigation, and participation in public discourse, we seek to advance the public interest in the rule of law, individual liberty, constitutional government, and a robust civil society. We strive to do so, moreover, in partnership with like-minded individuals and organizations – often our clients – who are committed to classical liberalism and constitutional government.
We recognize that these ideals are neither Democratic nor Republican, but American. Our focus is primarily, if not exclusively, on Wisconsin – a state that has become one of the focal points of our ongoing debate about the proper role of the government within society and of the courts within government. As a non-profit and non-partisan organization, we litigate in the areas of property rights, the freedom to earn a living, voting rights, regulation, taxation, school choice, and religious freedom. As an educational organization, we strive to advance the debate concerning law and public policy in these and other areas.
Amazingly, the "non partisan" WILL, seems to always run to the rescue of the Republicans exclusively. This time was no exception, as Rick Esenberg
rushed to the "rescue"?
My overall reaction is that this is a tired trope. Brian Hagedorn is an evangelical
Christian (I am not) and he holds views that evangelicals tend to hold regarding
marriage and human sexuality. He is also someone who sees the Constitution as a
document that ought to be interpreted in accordance with its text, history and structure (I
agree) and not as a vehicle for imposing whatever the judge sees as "justice" or "good
policy." If you take that view, decisions like Roe and Lawrence are very hard to justify
no matter how you feel about abortion or homosexuality.
On a general level, I think there are two problems with the increasing tendency to say
that certain types of religious people should be excluded from public office or limited in
their exercise of the authority of public office because "the dogma" or whatever it gets
called lives "too loudly" within them. The first is that it is inconsistent with
Constitution's prohibition of religious tests and establishes a regime of religious liberty.
The idea of America is that people of different religious understandings could live
together and participate in self government. There was to be no requirement of a
qualifying orthodoxy and the notion that one can't be a traditional Catholic or
Evangelical Christian amounts to the imposition of such an orthodoxy.
Second, Judge Hagedorn would not be required to recuse himself. The key case here is
called Republican Party v. White. In that case, which struck down a rule that prohibited
judicial candidates from announcing their position on legal or political issues, Justice
Scalia (writing for the majority) explored a taxonomy of bias and made clear that having
a point of view on a contested matter is not "bias."
As for the particular views expressed here, opposition to same sex marriage was the
position of Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and about 60% of Wisconsin voters in 2006.
The issue is no longer open for review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court because of the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell.
Nor can the Wisconsin Supreme Court depart from decisions like Roe and Lawrence.
But the idea that these decisions are constitutionally problematic is widely held. The
problem is that nothing in the Constitution addresses abortion or sexual relationships.
Nothing in the Constitution even establishes a general right of privacy in the sense of
being left alone. The Supreme Court hasn't adequately explained where these rights are
to be found, resulting, for awhile in a cottage industry for law professors who tried to
offer the rationale that the Court did not. To say, as Justice Kennedy did in Casey, that
there is some extra textual right to define the mystery of one's existence is unsatisfying
because it has no logical boundaries. Decisions like Roe, Lawrence and Obergefell are
troubling because, even if we like the particular outcome, they provide judges with
broad authority to undo democratic decision making. The legal criticism of these
decisions is not so much about their outcome, but about who decides. Judges or
legislators?
Thus, the point he's making about Lawrence is not that gay relationships are like
bestiality. It's clear from the context that he does not think that (he thinks the law in
Texas was not prudent) but that the principle that constitutionalizes the issue has no
logical stopping point. If you have a constitutional right to sexual selfexpression, why
might it not be extended to other forms of expression. A legislature can draw that line
because it can make ad hoc decisions but courts rule by abstract principle and have to
try to apply them consistently.
People who are prolife tend to have a sour view of Planned Parenthood because,
notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, it is very much an organization about
abortion. But a judge can oppose a group say the National Rifle Association or Center
for Immigration Studies and still be able to recognize its legal rights.
I think Brian is a welltrained and careful lawyer who understands the difference
between his religious and political views and what the law requires. To deny that any
such distinction exists is a bad faith reading of what he wrote and fundamentally
misunderstands the role of courts and judges.
So I'd say this stuff is not particularly relevant.
Heady stuff for a lawyer to voluntarily put out. Most normal people would pay a few thousand dollars for this. Of course most normal people are not running for Supreme Court on a platform of whatever Republicans do is lawful.
So lets look at Mr. Esenberg's statement a little closer.
*
Brian Hagedorn is an evangelical Christian (I am not) and he holds views that evangelicals tend to hold regarding marriage and human sexuality.
- Some questions, How did the non partisan WILL and Mr. Esenberg know what Mr., Hagedorn thinks and believes? Did they meet before this letter was drawn? If so, will that time be on Mr. Hagedorns Campaign Finance Reports? Also what views on marriage and human sexuality do evangelical Christians "tend to hold"? From what I can see,
the views they "tend to hold" is everything I do is fine, but I will be preaching and judging every move you make.
Or should I say, the single greatest cause of atheism today. You know who I’m talking about, right? The type of people who acknowledge Jesus with their words, and deny him through their lifestyle. The ones who preach the importance of traditional family values, all while holding a rally and offering standing ovations for a man who preyed on 14-year-old girls. The ones who look to excuse the despicable allegations directed at Roy Moore by literally quoting the bible, comparing his molestation to Joseph and Mary. I give you the most hypocritical religious group in America, Evangelical Christians.
Of course Mr. Hagedorn will only call balls and strikes. The Bible says so.
*
In that case, which struck down a rule that prohibited judicial candidates from announcing their position on legal or political issues, Justice Scalia (writing for the majority) explored a taxonomy of bias and made clear that having a point of view on a contested matter is not "bias."
An evangelical Christian,
believes strongly in:
4. Evangelical Christians are strongly motivated to share the gospel either one-on-one or through organized missions. Emphasis is placed on the Great Commission's call to share with the world the Christian message of salvation through Christ, and to "be publicly baptized as a confession of faith," according to PrayerFoundation.com.
5. Most, though not all, evangelicals believe there will be a rapture in the end times where the church will be "caught up with Christ before the Great Tribulation, leaving nonbelievers behind to suffer on Earth," states the Pew Research Center. This idea has gained attention through the "Left Behind" book series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the related movies.
Of course you can trust someone who feels that he needs to share his version of the Gospel and believes that the end times are coming and people who disagree with him will be left behind in some sort of Thanos finger snap, to put aside what God and Jesus command to rule fairly on sinners and those who will be left behind in the Rapture.
*
As for the particular views expressed here, opposition to same sex marriage was the
position of Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and about 60% of Wisconsin voters in 2006.
True it was not very politically expedient, or acceptable in society to be for gay marriage(though I always was), but it dishonest to compare Mr. Hagedorn to these others since, there is a chasm between not publicly approving of gay marriage and comparing it to bestiality. Only the furthest right wing extremists have ever had that view.
* If you have a constitutional right to sexual selfexpression, whymight it not be extended to other forms of expression.
It could extend to bestiality, or it could extend to a man and a woman, a man and two women, a man and women of different races,
a man and a 14 year old girl, a man and a porn star or playboy playmate(sans condom),
or even a man who just decides to grab a woman by the pussy nd start kissing her.
* People who are prolife tend to have a sour view of Planned Parenthood because,
notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, it is very much an organization about
abortion.
While i get that Esenberg is old school, and has to give a shout out to the anti choice people as often as possible, it is not
the least bit surprising that he is wrong yet again,
Abortions accounted for 3 percent of the nearly 10.6 million total services provided by Planned Parenthood clinics in 2013, according to its annual report.
Some services it provided in addition to abortions were:
4.5 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections
3.6 million contraception related services
935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests
1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services
* So I'd say this stuff is not particularly relevant.
Tell that
to Matthew Shepherd and
too many others!
In the end, despite Esenberg's poor excuse(and possibly illegal and/or unethical) of an apology, the reality is that Brian Hagedorn is not fit to be a Judge now, much less receive a promotion to the highest court in the land. It is time we started ending our excuses for every racist, bigot, homophobe who thinks they should run for higher office just because they will vote for what we want.
We can do better than this as a society and as a community. I do not expect WILL to ever start caring about the people of Wisconsin, but it is time the people of Wisconsin sent them a message.
In Wisconsin we expect more!
Posts
