WI Supreme Court Takes McAdams' Case

[Ellenson Guerrero]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court this afternoon accepted McAdams' petition to bypass the Court of Appeals and will hear his case this spring. This is pretty unusual, but not surprising given the make up of the court and the attention nationally that this case has received.
 https://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=A587DE4BF64F2ACC0A6EFA6275ECE7AC?caseNo=2017AP001240&cacheId=55D7340CE394F9218C410C72BC30B6F1&recordCount=1&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC

PS feel free to lock this thread as this case is obviously no longer of concern to people who follow Marquette.

[GGGG]

I'm looking forward to the conservatives crying over "judicial activism."

Oh yeah...  Not going to happen because it's protecting one of their own.  Typical.

[real chili 83]

In before the LOCK!!!

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[rocky_warrior]

Whew...so this will finally be over ~July.  That's overdue, regardless of outcome.

[jesmu84]

I mean.. isn't this ban territory for starting a repeatedly locked topic? Especially when told not to bring it up

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I mean.. isn't this ban territory for starting a repeatedly locked topic? Especially when told not to bring it up

I haven't insulted anyone, made this about politics, or resorted to name calling anywhere.  Its silly if our alma mater is in litigation with a professor in front of the highest court in the state and we can't have a topic on it in the freakin' Superbar. If people don't want to hear about McAdams, there are plenty of other threads about the Bucks, baseball, snowstorms and a million other things that have nothing to do with MU.

[Jay Bee]

#FreeMcAdams

[rocky_warrior]

I mean.. isn't this ban territory for starting a repeatedly locked topic? Especially when told not to bring it up

I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did. This is a legitimate update about something related to MU. Keep it non political, and I think it can stay. But hey, there's several sheriffs in this town. Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.

[rocky_warrior]

#FreeMcAdams

Seems like he's plenty free...to get a job elsewhere. 

[Lighthouse 84]

I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did. This is a legitimate update about something related to MU. Keep it non political, and I think it can stay. But hey, there's several sheriffs in this town. Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.

Thanks for allowing it because some of us might want to read about it, though someone near the top made it political already. 

[forgetful]

Whew...so this will finally be over ~July.  That's overdue, regardless of outcome.

Yeah...these types of things never seem to go away.  We'll still be seeing posts of this when Luca Diener win's his 4th consecutive national title for MU.

[Eldon]

I didn't say that. Maybe someone else did. This is a legitimate update about something related to MU. Keep it non political, and I think it can stay. But hey, there's several sheriffs in this town. Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.

I like you, Rocky.  You're a good dude.

[mayfairskatingrink]

I said a while ago that they had voted to take the case.

Remember I also said there was going to be a recusal by one of the conservative justices, so you will have a panel of 6 hearing the case.

[mu_hilltopper]

The topic isn't 'bad.' -- I locked the original McAdams' thread because it had been around for months, nothing of substance had been written for a while and it ended with bickering. 

The 2nd thread was just going to go the same road.

Admittedly, the having the WISC take this case is newsworthy.  Enjoy the thread while you can.

[GGGG]

Thanks for allowing it because some of us might want to read about it, though someone near the top made it political already. 

Because it's exactly what this entire thing has turned into - and its shameful. 

[mu03eng]

Plus it's likely to be locked in a day or two because many people can't handle themselves.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Because it's exactly what this entire thing has turned into - and its shameful.

Whatever role you think "politics" is playing, there are legitimate legal issues at stake that are unclear as things stand under current law.  It's an interesting case because both sides can point to good and bad facts for them and there is no real controlling precedent that clearly dictates how things should shake out. My prediction is that the Supreme Court really homes in on this issue of "deference" and whether the circuit judge abused his discretion by deferring to Lovell's interpretation of the situation.  I think that shakes out in McAdams favor, but you never know.

[GGGG]

Whatever role you think "politics" is playing, there are legitimate legal issues at stake that are unclear as things stand under current law.  It's an interesting case because both sides can point to good and bad facts for them and there is no real controlling precedent that clearly dictates how things should shake out. My prediction is that the Supreme Court really homes in on this issue of "deference" and whether the circuit judge abused his discretion by deferring to Lovell's interpretation of the situation.  I think that shakes out in McAdams favor, but you never know.

Bullsh*t.  It will shake out in McAdams favor because of the political make up of the court.  I mean, it's the entire reason the court took up the case.  I mean, there have been other professors with tenure fired from Wisconsin universities within the past two years. 

Why this one?  I'm not dumb enough to believe that the court would otherwise involve itself so directly in an employment contract case.

[Blue Horseshoe]

I think there are a lot of people confused about this case. Maybe not confused, but freely weave their own personal narrative and feelings onto the case itself. They've simply made up their mind based on their own feelings, regardless of any additional information available or that will become available.

Regardless of politics, this case has major implications. I am looking forward to watching this play out.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I mean, there have been other professors with tenure fired from Wisconsin universities within the past two years. 

Why this one?  I'm not dumb enough to believe that the court would otherwise involve itself so directly in an employment contract case.

Who? There might be such professors, but not many. And if they did get fired, it was probably for something criminal. This case is many things, but a run-of-the-mill employment law claim is not one of them.

[MUBurrow]

Whatever role you think "politics" is playing, there are legitimate legal issues at stake that are unclear as things stand under current law.

Regardless of politics, this case has major implications. I am looking forward to watching this play out.

What ambiguities or holes in WI law require the Supreme Court to establish precedent in this case?

As I understand it, the case is strictly a matter of whether Marquette violated their contract with McAdams by firing him for things they said they wouldn't. To the extent this case has any bearing on academic freedom or any of the larger drums being beat, that is only true inasmuch as Marquette's standard tenure contracts use language that is commonly used by other universities, correct? If the Supreme Court rules against Marquette, they (and all other universities keeping a close eye on this) could just adjust their standard tenure contracts going forward?

[Pakuni]

I'm curious as to where all those defending McAdams on the basis of academic freedom stood on the Susannah Bartlow matter.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Seeing conservatives fighting for stronger protections for tenure is hilarious

[Lighthouse 84]

Because it's exactly what this entire thing has turned into - and its shameful.

The other threads turned into that and they were locked. You're trying to turn this thread into one as well.  I'm interested in seeing how this plays out from a legal standpoint and haven't prejudged how the Wisconsin Supremes will rule since it's difficult to tell yet what specific issues they'll ultimately hang their collective hat on.

As an aside, I'm not a fan of tenure.  Too many bad professors out there with seemingly lifetime gigs.