The 2009 Election Begins Today
Written by Daniel on April 4, 2008 – 10:56 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson of the Wisconsin Supreme Court says she intends to “run hard” for another 10 years on the Court. The next Supreme Court election is April 2009. Already rumors abound that conservatives plan to mount a strong challenge to the Chief, who is the stalwart leader of the Court’s liberal wing. Obviously this blog will pay great attention to the race, as it develops, and much of my commentary will be critical of the Chief’s jurisprudence, I expect. So let me say this now.
Chief Justice Abrahamson is a truly great public servant. She has dedicated her life to serving the people of Wisconsin. She is a very intelligent and thoughtful judge. From the times I have seen her speak in person, she is very pleasant. She is very well respected by the members of the Bar. Her efforts educating the public about the Wisconsin judiciary are truly commendable. In short, I do, and all citizens should, hold the Chief in very high esteem.
However, the Chief has a judicial philosophy that is very different than mine. On matters and methods of interpretation, on the role and power of the courts in our system of government, on the meaning of texts, she takes a decidedly different view than I and many others take. Moreover, she has earned a national reputation as a zealous advocate for “New Federalism” and an expansive view of the rights of criminal defendants, and she will be appropriately held to account for that view. If a strong challenger candidate steps up, this will be a race that the entire nation pays attention to, and for good reason.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Steve Kagen's "Sleaze" Peddler - July 21st, 2008
- J. T. Dugan for ED-WI - July 16th, 2008
- Unfortunateness in the 8th - July 10th, 2008
- Good signs from new GB Bishop - July 9th, 2008
- DC Tourism Tips 1 and 2 - July 6th, 2008
Posted in Ministry of Strategery |
April 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Any old dolt can be a Justice, as long as they’re conservative, right?
April 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
If that dolt is more likely to read the law verbatim and not legislate from the bench, then sure. I’d rather have a dolt doing THEIR job properly than watch a genius chase MY job out of the state.
The WMC is apparently gearing up to take the old lady down. This will likely be portrayed as an offensive maneuver in the media, but this is purely a defensive posture by manufacturers, who’ve seen their business climate erode all too rapidly under Abrahamson’s watch…
-jjg
the Daily Scoff
April 4th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
They just have to graduate from at least a fourth tier law school–like Hamline.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is that classy, intellectual discussion that the Left wants to have, right?
April 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
James, you assume I’m on the left. Actually, I’m a Republican that belives that we now have three incompetent justices on the Court. Putting Gableman on the Court is analagous to naming the Simpson’s Dr. Nick as the Surgon General. We really should seek higher credentials than alumnuses of fourth tier law schools with only 1 trial victory as a prosector.
But the best example of incompetence is saved for Justice Roggensack, who is too mediocre to realize that she is legislating from the bench. Does she read the law verbatim? Hardly. Look at every economic loss docrtrine decision, which the so called judical onservatives have overturned over a centruy of case law, including Ollerman v. O’Rouke, which is one of the Wisconsin’s leading decisions. But your judicial conservatives don’t stop at case law, they attempt to overturn state statutes with a judicially created doctrine. Fortunatly, Butler was still on the Court when Stuart was decided.
I for one would rather have a competent Justices on the Court, than conservative dolts. Instead, we have Roggensack who has indicated that during oral arguments of Below v. Norton that she did not even believe that money is property in Wisconsin. I’m embarrased for her.
Check out the video on Wiseye.org. The exchange illustrates why we need Justice Abrahamson, on the Court as she pointed out that if Roggensack’s view were correct an indivdual could not be prosecuted for stealing money if they used fraud to obtain the money. Tough on crime? If Roggensack’s money is not property view becomes the prevailing law, we need to let the Defendant in State v. Ploeckelman out of jail.
In electing Gableman we do not send a message that we want a judicial conservative–because he will not be one–instead we send a message that the Court is for sale.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Anthony-
I argued Below before the Supremes. I appreciate your interest in our case, but I’m curious why you are so interested. Please email me through the address listed in the WisBar directory.
Rudy