Mar 31, 2013

So-called Merit Selection Is GOP Fraud

The Wisconsin State Journal continues its years-long advocacy of 'merit selection' of Wisconsin supreme court justices, to replace direct citizens' election.

The State Journal's idea is deceitful, and the text even in its latest editorial belies the intent to install more GOP justices onto the Court.

Writes the State Journal: "(J)udicial elections are turning Wisconsin’s best judges into the worst of politicians. The candidates routinely take campaign money from the same attorneys and special interest groups that eventually will come before the court, seeking favorable decisions. That creates conflicts of interest and deep distrust in court decisions."

Yes, GOP judicial candidates take campaign money from special interests in obvious conflicts of interests on whose cases the GOP justices rule—that's the "Roggensack Rule," in which the four GOP justices alone "accepted verbatim a rule suggested by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which stated that a campaign donation by itself could never require a recusal." (Murphy)

Yet, the State Journal editors refuse to advocate the defeat of the GOP justices.

Ed Fallone has campaigned against the Roggensack Rule, so the State Journal will endorse Fallone, right?

No. The State Journal wants Roggensack and the other three GOP justices and their rubber stamp votes on Scott Walker's agenda. Where's the merit in that?

If the State Journal were really concerned about conflict of interests and money, they would be opposing the four GOP perpetrators on the court.

The State Journal's editorial is composed mostly of criticism of all the special interest money in the race.

Not surprisingly, Scott Walker and the GOP killed public financing for candidates to the state Supreme Court in 2011, a move that nevertheless earned the GOP the State Journal's editorial support.

The State Journal's editorial is entitled the "The no-comment campaign," because the candidates rightfully refuse comment cases in which they are likely to rule ... sometimes.

But even the title is misleading as Roggensack has made clear her intention to uphold the GOP's Act 10 (passed with unanimous GOP support and no Democratic support) and the GOP's voter obstruction law (again passed with unanimous GOP support and no Democratic support): "Roggensack said that if Fallone is elected he would 'chip away' at the powers of the other two branches of government (currently held by the GOP in secretly gerrymandered districts)," notes Jud Lounsbury.

Chip away. How's that? By overturning unconstitutional laws?

The four GOP justices are corrupt. The State Journal editors know this, and refuse to point out the GOP corruption.

The State Journal had rather adopt a reformist pose and advocate taking away public scrutiny of the third branch of Wisconsin government.

Transparency is not the GOP and State Journal's way.

By the way, Chief Justice Abrahamson's proposal for open deliberation of the Supreme Court was opposed four-to-three with all four GOP justices voting to block transparency to the State Journal's approval.

Fallone opposes secrecy. Roggensack voted for secrecy. Where's the merit in that?

No comments:

Post a Comment