Comments on: Calling J. Butler Out on Judicial Philosophy

By: The Cloakroom » Hill Update: Weekend At Harry’s

The Cloakroom » Hill Update: Weekend At Harry’s — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:37:41 +0000

[...] Louis Butler is a liberal judge who was rejected by Wisconsin voters — TWICE. When Louis Butler lost his race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2008, he was the first incumbent justice to be defeated since 1967. He had previously lost to then-Justice Diane S. Sykes in a race for the Court in 2000 – Butler earned 34 percent of the vote and lost in all 72 counties, including Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) counties. During his brief but too long tenure on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Louis Butler was a left-wing judicial activist who harmed Wisconsin’s business climate and endangered Wisconsin families. For a review of his opinions, see http://gop3.com//wp-content/up.....butler.pdf. For rebuttals to any claims he may make about being at textualist, tough on criminals, precedent, or new federalism, see http://gop3.com/2008/03/29/cal.....hilosophy/. [...]

By: The Cloakroom » Hill Update: One bad Butler, Ignoring Science on stem cells and Sen. Mikulski wins one for Planned Parenthood

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:52:12 +0000

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:36:59 +0000

That’s great, Gregory.

Any opinion on this post – on Butler’s shapeshifter attitude on his record – or are you just pontificating on Gableman?

By: Gregory

Gregory — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:11:36 +0000

With glaring and inexcusable lapses in judgment Gableman has made charges that are just not truthful. The assertions made by Gableman in an attack ad against Louis Butler concerning a person charged with a sex crime were proved to be false. There is no way that the Gableman campaign could not have known the facts. The only way they were able to construct that ad was to take the facts, and jumble it all so as to distort, mislead, and mangle, all in a bizarre hope to confuse the voters.

Where is the honor in running that type of campaign?

I have profound doubts, based on the way Michael Gableman has conducted this race, as to his ability to wade through even the most evident of facts and reach a clear understanding of where the truth is to be found. Is that not supposed to be the way law is to be followed? If he cannot achieve that in a campaign, how will he do any better when the weighty issues of the court fall on his shoulders?

I still hold to some old-fashioned ideas about how races for public office should be conducted. As I told a candidate for state office once when he asked for my advice, “do nothing, whether you win or lose, that you will not feel proud about the morning after the election when you look in the mirror.”