Playing the game at warp speed.

So in the RSS reader is this press release by Wisconsin Democrats:

GOP Drunk Driver Heads Scott Walker Drunk Driver Protection Push
Jim Steineke Had DUI, Hit-And-Run Convictions

MADISON-At the helm of Scott Walker’s efforts to roll back consumer protections for special interests is a convicted drunk driver who wants to limit legal awards to families of those injured or killed by drunk drivers.

Jim Steineke, co-author of the centerpiece legislation for Walker’s ongoing special interest session, told a Green Bay newspaper about his 2002 drunk driving arrest, and records show he was convicted in 1991 of hit-and-run driving.

It’s just the latest example of Republican hypocrisy in a special legislative session marked by extremism and pandering to special interests-and a total sellout of Wisconsin’s working families.

“In Scott Walker World, a drunk driver is writing legislation protecting drunk drivers,” Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate said Thursday. “This has nothing to do with jobs, and everything to do with Republican hypocrisy.”

Ok. Fine. You know I have no love lost for the Republican propensity to really pick ’em when it comes to representatives and staff. (Think Newcomer and Fischer if you need concrete examples.)

But.

(Oh, come on, you knew there’d be a but!)

The WisDEMS don’t exactly manage the situation like rocket scientists. Missing are the details of the connection of how the tort limitations currently proposed protect drunk drivers.

Details, please. Some of us are trying to pay attention. It’s just that you make it so darn hard to see the core of an issue while you’re slinging crap.

Comments

  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    If I lived in Wisconsin, I would tell the new Governor to make another choice and I would tell the Democrats there is a tax cheat in charge of the IRS. Clean your own house first.

  2. Good point about TurboTax Tim! That still boggles the mind.

  3. From the pals of lets bust Jeff Wood out of the joint so we can get his vote for our union buds…

  4. That is an excellent point, Fred. I’d forgotten all about it!

    I do believe you won that round.

  5. tort limitations . a tort is a civil
    wrong done to another based on negligence. lawyers will tell you that the statute of limitations to file a negligence case is 3 years from date of incident.if the negligent party(owi offender in this case) has liability insurance the lawyer will join that negligent party prior to the 3 year expiration date, if not settled. if not, some lawyers will sue the uninsured person if that person has personal assets and after judgment it becomes a collection case good for 20 years. but……….most lawyers will not take such a case on a contingent fee basis because the judgment may be uncollectible. i know because i represented injured persons who tried that. when suing an ins. co. the lawyer will join the tortfeasor/negligent party so that his/her ins. co. will cover him up to the policy limits which is another story. tort law is basically founded on the British common law such as Prof. Prosser on Torts and the Restatement of Torts which are both published references taught in the law schools. all this has nothing to do with the criminal law and the criminal law prosecutions and penalties. it may be an inequity but thats what it is.

  6. the difficulty with analyzing new/old laws is that the law is not published with the story. or even a summary with the imp. points. no lawyer or judge should interpret a law unless reading it. news stories, blogs, communications, etc. never do this. someone writes about something someone has not read. we can rely on the “rule of law”. not what you heard but what you have read (and understand).