Facts and Law v. Corruption

The foundation upon which we elect judges to Wisconsin's top appellate court is impartiality and committed application of the law and facts, right?

Wrong again.

With the notable exception of Shirley Abrahamson, this year's supreme court campaign between Judge Randy Koschnick and incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson again demonstrates the utter lack of fidelity to the above principles, with virtually all of journalism blindly following along the circus (disappointingly journalist Dee Hall joinied in the no-thinking chorus).

Last night's debate and coverage are emblematic of the know-nothing judicial campaigns of Wisconsin.

Consider Hall's reporting.

Hall makes no reference to Wisconsin's Code of Judicial Conduct that mandates "'(impartiality' (meaning) the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties, or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the judge."

Hall, instead, gives readers a he-said, she-said reporting of the debate:

In what is becoming a replay of previous Wisconsin Supreme Court races, Judge Randy Koschnick, a self-declared 'judicial conservative' and 'choice of law enforcement,' sought to paint incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson as a liberal who favors defendants over victims and the police.

Abrahamson retorted that 'a judge is not supposed to be pro- or anti-anything.' Calling such labels 'meaningless' and 'name-calling,' Abrahamson insisted that she decides cases on facts and law — not her personal feelings.

[Note Stacy Forster's reporting in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is no better than Hall's, quoting Abrahamson's reference to a "fair, impartial, independent judiciary" without mention of the fact that an impartial, independent judiciary is the law.]

Only one candidate's campaign, Abrahamson, is in compliance with Wisconsin's Code of Judicial Conduct mandating impartiality and application of facts and law.

This campaign is a replay certainly (like the Butler-Gableman race last year), but the culprits are know-nothing journalism such as Hall's and Koschick's campaign, in stark contrast to Abrahamson's.

Koschnick outright promises to be biased in favor of a class of litigants (what he terms law enforcement) while Abrahamson promises fidelity to facts and law.

This routine per se breaking of the foundation of judicial policymaking in judicial campaigns escapes Hall's reporting (and all that I've read), though Koschick has said, in effect: 'Elect me, I'm corrupt.'

Isn't this worth a graf or two?