Wisconsin High Court Candidates Disgrace the Office
‘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.
###
Comments
First,
Judge Gableman
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.
The sad truth
The candidates do it because the voters believe that law and order is an issue in judicial races, and no amount of "education" by the candidates will change their minds.
That's why they tout those endorsements. Gableman and his surrogates (WMC) are going to try to portray Butler as "Loophole Louie," a guy who favors criminals over victims and law enforcement.
Butler is trying to innoculate himself against those charges by being able to say, "If I'm so soft on crime, why are these law enforcement people supporting me?" We may all wish it were some other way, but that's the situation.
Failing to recognize it on Butler's part would guarantee his defeat, which may well happen anyway given the amount of money on the other side to attack him as soft on crime.