NYT: ‘Far Right’ Spreads Baseless Claims About Biden’s Whereabouts
CNN's Gen Z Correspondent Explains Ties Between Kamala Harris Campaign and ‘Brat Summer’
Congressman Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Kamala Harris
FINALLY! Just Stop Oil Loons Are Facing Long Prison Sentences, and They Deserve...
Alyssa Milano Shares a Weird Picture Crying Over Kamala
A Real-Life Episode of 'Veep': Kamala Harris Cackles Her Way Into Wisconsin
Read This NYT Hagiography of Joe Biden From Two Days Before the Debate
Mayorkas, Wray Decline to Appear at Assassination Hearings
Ana Navarro's Political Car Chronicles Quickly Devolved into a Weird Kamala Fairy Tale
Jim Acosta: 'Irresponsible' for Trump to Say What Secret Service Admits (That They...
If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It (Not!): Kamala Harris Wanted...
Stochastic Terrorism Alert: After Assassination Attempt, Harris Ad Calls Trump 'Existentia...
‘Prepare Yourselves’: Kamala Harris Has ‘Got The One-Handed Egg Crack Down’
Chill, Keith! Olbermann LOSES IT Over Cardinals Using Trump's Fist Gesture, Deletes Post...
Elon Musk Opens Up to Jordan Peterson: 'My Son Is Dead, Killed by...

Words Mean Things: Wisconsin Supreme Court Gets VERY Creative With Definition of 'Sidewalk'

Meme screenshot

This is an interesting story that probably wouldn't get much notice inside or outside the state of Wisconsin, but we're glad Jonathan Turley brought it to our attention.

Advertisement

Here's background from Turley:

At issue was the effort of the state to create more sidewalks. Faced with resistance from homeowners, the state was using eminent domain to simply condemn the land and claim it for sidewalks. However, Wisconsin has strong protections for home owners, including statutes expressly stating that the power of eminent domain must be “strictly construed” against the government.

Moreover, there is a statute that expressly bars the use of eminent domain to take property for “pedestrian way[s].” It defines a “pedestrian way” as “a walk designated for the use of pedestrian travel.”

To every Bumble and non-Bumble alike, that would seem to describe a sidewalk, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a usually paved walk for pedestrians at the side of a street.”

But the liberal justices on Wisconsin's supreme court, including Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet decided to play fast and loose with the definition of 'sidewalk' and 'pedestrian travel'. From Justice Dallet:

Reading the text of this section as a whole, we find several indications that the definition of pedestrian way does not include sidewalks. For starters, both § 346.02(8)(a) and (b) use the terms “sidewalk” and “pedestrian way” in ways that signify that each term has a separate, non-overlapping meaning. … Section 346.02(8)(b) states that pedestrian ways shall be treated ‘as if’ they were sidewalks for utility installation and assessment purposes. The phrase “as if” signals that one category (pedestrian ways) should receive the same treatment as a different category (sidewalks). That is the same way the legislature used “as if” in, for example, Wis. Stat. § 53.03, which states that Wisconsin courts “may treat a foreign country as if it were a state” in guardianship proceedings. Just as foreign countries are not states, but should be treated as if they were for guardianship purposes, pedestrian ways are not sidewalks, but should be treated as if they were for utility-installation and assessment purposes.

Advertisement

What is the purpose of a sidewalk if not a means of 'pedestrian travel'?

That's how this works now.

That's a logical conclusion one could draw from this court's ruling.

We agree.

A big joke, but not a funny one.

And you can point to this ruling as giving you permission to do so.

Yes they will.

We have no idea.

Advertisement

Won't get an argument from this writer, who lives in Milwaukee.

Of course it is. It's positively Orwellian.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement