By far the juiciest controversy of the past week was the “baby mama” debate. The state’s 1st District Court of Appeals determined that a man convicted of drug possession must get a new sentencing hearing because former Circuit Court Judge Joe Wall used inappropriate language when sentencing. Wall referred to the man’s “baby mama,” asking where “you guys” find women to support them while they stay home. “Is there a club?” Wall asked.
Appeals Court Judge Joan Kessler’s decision said the defendant, who is African-American, might conclude “the sentence was imposed at least in part because of race.” In a concurring opinion, Judge Patricia Curley said Wall’s “sarcastic and demeaning” comments ran afoul of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Radio talkers Jeff Wagner and Charlie Sykes condemned the opinion and lefty blogs in turn condemned Sykes and company. So many commentators jumped on the issue that I can’t possibly refer to all of them. But for all the sound and fury, I can’t help thinking the issue has been misunderstood in several important respects, including:
1. The decision merely asks that a guilty defendant be resentenced. He’s still guilty. He still will be punished. A new sentence by a different Circuit Court judge could be less severe (Wall sentenced the defendant, Landray M. Harris, to two years in prison and three years probation) or could be stricter. But it will be made without sarcastic comments that might be misconstrued.
2. The appeals court didn’t say Wall was a racist but that his comments might be perceived by observers to suggest some bias in sentencing. Wagner and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Mike Nichols launched into a defense of Wall on this score. I’ve met Wall socially and read his op-ed columns and I would agree. He’s bright, impressive and certainly doesn’t seem like a racist. But anyone can make a mistake or lose their temper.
3. The decision by Kessler, while it could be argued with, was a reasonable interpretation of legal precedent. She cites United States v. Leung, where a judge sentencing an Asian defendant said “we have enough home-grown criminals in the United States without importing them.” The higher court ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing, saying it did not believe the trial court judge was biased against the defendant, but that “a reasonable observer … might infer, however incorrectly, that Leung’s ethnicity and alien status played a role in determining her sentence.”
4. Wall’s response to the appeals court decision was telling. He blasted it as “legally incorrect and shameful, and … a transparent stretch to appear politically correct at a politically correct moment.” While the appeals court avoided imputing any motives to Wall, he declined to return the favor. There is an intemperate, self-righteous feel to his complaint, not unlike his comments in the courtroom.
5. We can argue whether “baby mama” might be construed as aimed at blacks. Kessler’s footnote says the phrase originated in Jamaican Creole culture and then made its way into the American hip-hop; her critics cite the Tina Fey movie Baby Mama as proof the phrase has gone mainstream. But if Wall was being sarcastic and demeaning, as Curley contends, would that make baby mama feel more pointed to observers?
6. The fact that the appeals court was divided and Judge Kitty Brennan dissented (also in a solidly argued opinion) shows how reasonable people can disagree on a case like this. What’s striking is that the judges slapped the hand of one of their own. It sends a message that all judges, even one who was as highly regarded as Wall, are not above judicial review and that all should adhere to the code of conduct requiring them to be “patient, dignified and courteous” in the courtroom. That seems like a standard worth enforcing, and its cost – one new sentencing hearing – seems minimal.
The Obama Naysayer
Across the country, observers celebrated the inauguration of Barack Obama as a historic event. For one day, the partisan gloves were off. Even the stingingly conservative editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez offered an image of the Lincoln Memorial with Lincoln saying “Godspeed.”
The exception was Journal Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran, whose murky column offered vague dissatisfaction that mostly felt like him being uncomfortable with the celebration. He chided Obama’s supporters as believers in a vacuous, “faith-based presidency.” He suggested Obama’s inaugural speech lacked specifics, either ignoring or unaware of the fact these speeches are never about concrete policies. He actually asked a supporter what was the best thing Obama had done so far – on Inauguration Day, within minutes of Obama becoming president!
Based on a couple quotes he coaxed from two supporters who watched the inauguration at Uihlein Hall, McIlheran seems to suggest that all of Obama’s supporters – would that be all 69.5 million who voted for him? – are easily gulled by vague generalities. The fact that McIlheran proffered the vaguest of generalities to make this complaint is, at the very least, ironic.
But beyond the irony was something just a little ugly. While commentators of all ideologies were celebrating, for one day, a watershed moment in our nation’s history, McIlheran was above such generosity. He thought it more appropriate to condescend to the majority of Americans.
The Buzz
-Sunday’s New York Times story on workers fleeing to safer jobs used Wisconsin for its example of a blue-collar worker, an Appleton man laid off by a paper mill who is now getting training for truck driving and welding. Even as commentators and policymakers push for more high-tech companies, Wisconsin is still very much a manufacturing state and is seen that way nationally.
-Yes, the Journal Sentinel often runs its investigative stories too long with too many installments, but the paper has never in its history done stronger enterprise reporting. Sunday offered two potent examples on one day: first, the series on child care providers who scam the state system. Second, a story showing the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health accepted $1.5 million from a drug company and promoted hormone therapy drugs it produced that have been shown to have harmful side effects.
-On the other hand, a JS story on how one lawmaker retired a couple days earlier to take advantage of a better annual pension amounted to a “phony scandal,” as conservative commentator Christian Schneider dubbed it in his well-argued posting.
-And from the Department of Chutzpah: Former County Clerk Mark Ryan now wants to un-waive the waiver of the 25 percent pension sweetener that he signed back in 2002. Ryan claims he only wanted to give up the lucrative backdrop but was told by an unnamed county official that he had to give up the 25 percent bonus, too. That’s odd, since other county officials (like former District Attorney E. Michael McCann) had no problem giving up their backdrop while keeping the 25 percent sweetener. Ryan is asking us to believe a county clerk and classic insider didn’t know the rules.
The more likely explanation: Ryan waived both benefits because he would have otherwise faced criticism when he ran for re-election. Once he signed, he had smooth sailing, running successfully for re-election in 2004 and 2008 before retiring in July. Now he’s decided he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.
And are the Bucks a cursed team? The Sports Nut consults his tea leaves.
