‘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.
###