'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. Right?
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, right?
Wrong.
The race between Randy Koschnick and the incumbent Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson (below-right) again shows the fetid judicial politics of Wisconsin.
But in this race both candidates are not both guilty, unlike the last Supreme Court race between Justice Louis Butler and Judge Michael Gableman.
Koschnick is guilty as sin, Abrahamson is innocent. [Rumor has it that Abrahamson is near dictatorial and petty in her administration over fellow colleagues, one should note.]
But the media, including the progressive media, are playing in the gutter, though the top appellate court should be a body impartially ascertaining what the law is. It's the law.
The candidates' ability and dedication to this enterprise should, any reasonable person will agree, be the basis upon how we choose our Supreme Court judges; unless you happen to want your judges corrupt, partial to specific communities of interest and certain classes of litigants.
Low Road
Consider media coverage. After Abrahamson acclaims her commitment to impartiality, a Madison progressive journalist covering the race excoriates Abrahamson while ironically bemoaning "how degraded our state Supreme Court elections have become ." (Lueders, Isthmus)
"I do what the facts and law require," said Abrahamson.
Bill Lueders, emblematic of our political culture on judicial politics, then bizarrely takes Abrahamson to task for this stated commitment.
From Lueders, on Abrahamson's commitment to impartiality:
As for Koschnick, his campaign is SOP: Abrahamson has sided with criminal defendants, yada yada, as though this were inherently bad, and a commitment to siding with the state (and by corollary any given, favored class of litigants) is what qualifies a candidate for judicial office.
Abrahamson will win this race, Koschnick has no money and the WMC is sitting the race out.
But Abrahamson's running a campaign promising to just tell us what the law is and apply it gets no applause in the political culture in Wisconsin and not from any progressive media outlet that I've read.
"I do what the facts and law require," said Abrahamson.
Bill Lueders, emblematic of our political culture on judicial politics, then bizarrely takes Abrahamson to task for this stated commitment.
From Lueders, on Abrahamson's commitment to impartiality:
It's a good argument to make, but unconvincing. While a surprisingly large share of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously, some do break down along obviously ideological lines. At least some of Abrahamson's supporters believe she'll apply the law in ways that favor injured people over corporations and the rights of the criminal defendants, some innocent, over the power of the state.
That's why they support her. Abrahamson's reluctance to affirm and defend these leanings undercut her appeal. She's running from her own record of progressivism, which she should be trumpeting.
Why is the heck is progressivism irreconcilable with be judicial impartiality? Shouldn't a progressive, independent judge be impartial? Lueders doesn't explain.
As for Koschnick, his campaign is SOP: Abrahamson has sided with criminal defendants, yada yada, as though this were inherently bad, and a commitment to siding with the state (and by corollary any given, favored class of litigants) is what qualifies a candidate for judicial office.
Abrahamson will win this race, Koschnick has no money and the WMC is sitting the race out.
But Abrahamson's running a campaign promising to just tell us what the law is and apply it gets no applause in the political culture in Wisconsin and not from any progressive media outlet that I've read.
