Wisconsin Supreme Court Election—Tim Burns Towers over Two Opponents

Comment such as that above leave Tim Burns, candidate
for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, labeled a heretic.
The National Review today calls Burns a "Sandernista."

Finally, a, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate calls bull-shite on this farce

Madison, Wisconsin—There is a case decided in 2001 by the nation's highest appellate court that instructs the Wisconsin Supreme Court primary on Feb. 20.

Atwater V. Lago Vista is a Fourth Amendment case in which a mother and her two young children, three- and five-years old, were pulled over by an over-zealous Texas cop, verbally abused, and arrested in front of multiple, gathering witnesses who all confirmed the same story: Young children were traumatized and cried, as their mother was arrested by a vicious police officer for a traffic violation.

"The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrant-less arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seat-belt violation punishable only by a fine. We hold that it does not," the United States Supreme Court held 5-4

A powerful dissent by Justices O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer notes the demise of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and security in this "severe intrusion on an individual’s liberty," (as custodial arrests are), in a decision preceding 9/11 by five months, after which for other reasons: Good bye, Fourth Amendment and hello, American police state.

Atwater is animated by a general disdain the state and federal courts have towards the liberties of Americans against police incursions. For all the fluff about 'land of the free,' after Atwater, the Fourth Amendment barely exists today.

With respect to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election tomorrow, three candidates are on the ballot, two of whom will continue as candidates in the April 3 Spring general election.

Only one candidate, Tim Burns, cares about the liberties and humanity of Gail Atwater of Texas, brutalized by a cop.

Tim Burns

Tim Burns, has made concern for citizens against powerful interests the basis of his campaign.

The only appellate attorney in the race, Burns acclaims the primacy of voters' rights, the right to safe, clean water, civil liberties and citizens' right to an impartial judiciary among other liberties that 20 years ago were not controversial in Wisconsin.

Rebecca Dallet

Rebecca Dallet is a judge pretending the Wisconsin Supreme Court is a trial court.

Dallet's tendency to mislead the electorate plays well politically with some of the state Party and legal establishment.

But Dallet's record belies her claim to instructive experience for Wisconsin's top appellate court, as a bulwark for citizen liberties against unlawful lower courts, and the corporation and police interests for whom jurists like Dallet work.

Dallet is the presiding judge in Wisconsin v. Ryan Erik Diggins, (2003), (overturned on appeal)), in which Dallet found blacks leaning against a wall were engaging in suspicious conduct because racist Milwaukee police said so.

Under Dallet's black-hence-suspicious theory of liberty and people, one can understand how America has evolved into a police state.

Dallet is the problem, so it's no surprise Dallet donated $2,500 to he Koch brothers' chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This is how Dallet thinks about the world, a land with little rights dominated by Koch brothers-approved stooges.

Michael P. Screnock

Michael P. Screnock is manifestly unqualified, directly funded by corporate Wisconsin. In the Republicans' view of Wisconsin, privacy and liberty claims are of no moment.

This is a moment for Wisconsin.

But if 15 percent of the electorate votes on Feb. 20, I will be quite surprised.