‘Don’t worry about the result; just tell me what the law is.’

Such a directive ought to be the mission, objective and goal of every justice of the state’s top appellate court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

If one were to ask candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court their commitment to the above principle, one can expect a declaration of absolute fidelity.

But you would not deduce the presence of this judicial ethos from the campaigns of the two leading candidates for the seat in the current election, Justice Louis Butler and Judge Michael Gableman.

Like the others' before them, their campaigns do not offer explanation of the judicial process, the nature of appellate procedures, the role of briefs and arguments in the creation of judicial policy, and the imperative to be impartial; but rather well-crafted political demagoguery.

Go to both candidates’ websites (and their TV spots) and one can read about the endorsements from police associations, law enforcement officials, and District Attorneys.

What does parading the endorsements mean?

That these candidates have a disposition in favor of a particular class of litigants?

Judges are supposed to be impartial.

Their slogans ought to be: Elect us, we’re corrupt!

The same principle applies to endorsements from unions, business organizations, or any other interests.

That’s great that the Supreme Court has unanimously called for public financing for candidates to its office. Money corrupts more than endorsements, no matter how prominantly the endorsements are used.

If Butler and Gableman wish to be a Supreme Court justice for the next term, they should act like it and stow the likes of the law-and-order, we’re tough rhetoric, and instead edify the electorate on the judicial processes, the function of the top appellate court in impartially ascertaining what the law is, and the candidates' ability and dedication to this enterprise.

Electing judges whose job it is to avoid advocacy once in office ought to result in the candidates' insulating themselves from specific communities of interest during the campaign.


###

Share/Save

I do agree that the


I do agree that the websites for the campaign are depressingly similar.  However, one needs to look at the endorsements (and their reputations) as well.

A quick google search brought this article up concerning Sensenbrenner.  The fact that this is who is ENDORSING Gableman is enlightening.

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1070

  He is also being supported by police CHIEFS, SHERIFFS and DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.  In a word, MANAGEMENT.

On the other hand, Butler is endorsed by Baldwin, Obey, Kagen, Kind, Feingold. And also by police OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, RETIRED PEOPLE and UNIONS.  In (two) words, "THE PEOPLE".

I think we all want "law and order" but we want that mete out FAIRLY.  Herein lies the difference.  But I'll agree less of the rhetoric would be a welcome change.  LOL...looks like that message of "change" finally hit my consciousness.

Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Kachingle!

Regular Reader? - Support Uppity Wisconsin and other sites with Kachingle! Spend $5/month across your favorite web sites, including Uppity Wisconsin. Mouse over above to find out more.

Uppity Fund
Tom Barrett (WI-Gov) $
Russ Feingold (WI-Sen) $
Paulette Garin (WI-01) $
Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) $
Gwen Moore (WI-04) $
David Obey (WI-07) $
Steve Kagen (WI-08) $
Pat Kreitlow (WI-SD-23) $
Kathleen Vinehout (WI-SD-31) $
Kristen Dexter (WI-HD-68) $
Jeff Smith (WI-HD-93) $
Recent comments