October 9, 2015

The new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice: Rebecca Bradley.

Appointed today by Governor Scott Walker to replace Justice N. Patrick Crooks, who died last month. 

Bradley was already running for election to the seat Crooks had announced he would vacate at the end of his term next spring, and Senate Democratic Leader Jennifer Shilling criticized Walker for appointing someone who was a candidate:
"It is unprecedented for a Wisconsin governor of any party to appoint a declared judicial candidate to the Supreme Court this close to an election," said Shilling, D-La Crosse. "This power grab sets a terrible precedent and doesn’t pass the smell test.”
I guess the idea is that Walker could have appointed a place-keeper to finish the term and let the various declared candidates continue on a level playing field toward the spring election.

Would a Democratic governor have resisted giving a favored judicial candidate this boost? There have been many appointments to the Wisconsin Supreme Court of justices who gone on to compete in the next election. Shilling's point is that it's never been this close to the election. That's what's unprecedented and supposedly smelly.

Bradley is a 1996 graduate of Wisconsin Law School. I'm very happy to see our alumna ascend to the high court.

ADDED: The conservative David Blaska had recommended the place-keeper solution:
A dose of political reality: Scott Walker is underwater with Wisconsin voters right now, like it or not. Why put that onus on Judge Rebecca Bradley, who has announced her candidacy in next spring’s election? To the vacancy left by the late Justice Crooks appoint someone like Jim Troupis, now a conservative judge in Dane County, who — I’m guessing — would not seek election to the post. (Although he’d be good.)

44 comments:

MadisonMan said...

I'm happy someone young was appointed.

Dear Baby Boomers: Get out of the way already.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
I'm happy someone young was appointed.

Dear Baby Boomers: Get out of the way already."

Why?

WisRich said...

Althouse said:

"Would a Democratic governor have resisted giving a favored judicial candidate this boost? "

Funny.

Could this prompt Shirley Abrahamson to retire?

Big Mike said...

Would a Democratic governor have resisted giving a favored judicial candidate this boost?

Glad I was through with the morning's coffee. Hot coffee coming out the nose can be problematic.

I'm very happy to see our alumna ascend to the high court.

Did you have her in any of your classes?

@MadMan, if the younger folks coming up behind us were any good, we'd be pleased to.

MadisonMan said...

Why?

Imagine how much better government would be if every politician who is also a baby boomer retired. Old ideas are replaced by more modern ones.

Of course I say that as someone who votes against incumbents (which makes the coming Senatorial campaign not very appealing....do I vote against the current or former incumbent?)

BarrySanders20 said...

Rebecca Bradley is a terrific person with a sharp mind. She is engaging and confident without a hint of pretentiousness.

She'll be a great justice.

It sets up a huge battle with the Forces of the Kloppenbopper.

Qwinn said...

"Shilling's point is that it's never been this close to the election. That's what's unprecedented and supposedly smelly."

Speaking of things happening too close to an election:


"Torricelli had won nomination for a second term in the June primary elections and was expected to defeat the Republican nominee, former West Windsor Township mayor Doug Forrester. However, an ongoing probe into his activities, especially where donations were concerned, resulted in Torricelli being indicted on federal corruption charges and turned the tide of the election against him.[10] With the charges and dropping poll numbers looming over him, Torricelli announced on September 30, 2002 that he was dropping out of the race. In regards to a replacement, Torricelli was against Lautenberg replacing him and the Democrats made offers to retired Senator Bill Bradley, whose seat Torricelli won in 1996, as well as Hudson County Congressman Robert Menendez and Middlesex County Congressman Frank Pallone.[14][17][18] Bradley elected to stay retired and Menendez, who was eventually appointed to the Senate in 2006 when Corzine resigned to become governor, and Pallone had their own campaigns to run and declined. Lautenberg was then offered the position on the ticket and accepted.

Almost immediately, the New Jersey Republican Party challenged the replacing of Torricelli with Lautenberg, citing that the timing was too close to the election and, per New Jersey law, the change could not be allowed. The ballot name change was unanimously upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court,[19] who cited that the law did not provide for a situation like Torricelli's and said that leaving Torricelli on the ballot would be an unfair advantage for Forrester.[17] The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case. Lautenberg defeated Forrester in the general election, 54% to 44%, and took office for his fourth term in January 2003."

When the Left wants to, they can utterly and completely disregard the explicit laws on the books, and it doesn't even qualify as a scandal in the media. When the Right does something utterly and completely legal, SCANDAL!

The Left can, as always, kiss my f'ing ass.

Original Mike said...

"""It is unprecedented for a Wisconsin governor of any party to appoint a declared judicial candidate to the Supreme Court this close to an election," said Shilling, D-La Crosse. "This power grab sets a terrible precedent and doesn’t pass the smell test.”"

Oh, shut up. You'd have done the same thing. Whether it helps or hurts her, we'll see.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Dear Baby Boomers: Get out of the way already."

Why?"

Because you've wrecked the great country your parents built.

On a side note, Althouse, I met a former student of yours last night. She didn't stay with law as a profession, opting for engineering instead.

Original Mike said...

"Dear Baby Boomers: Get out of the way already."

I'm dying as fast as I can, man.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"@MadMan, if the younger folks coming up behind us were any good, we'd be pleased to"

Truly, they couldn't be worse.

Qwinn said...

Seriously, look at this part again:

"The ballot name change was unanimously upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court,[19] who cited that the law did not provide for a situation like Torricelli's and said that leaving Torricelli on the ballot would be an unfair advantage for Forrester"

How the hell is the law supposed to "provide for a situation like Toricelli's"? Is it supposed to say "Candidates cannot be replaced within 60 days of the election *unless he's indicted on corruption charges*?" That's ludicrous. Does anyone think that if the Republican had been the one who was indicted, the New Jersey Court would have had the same opinion? Sorry, but the only real way the law could have "provided for a situation like Toricelli's" is if the law said "Candidates cannot be replaced within 60 days of the election unless it inconveniences Democrats".

Ignorance is Bliss said...

A dose of political reality: Scott Walker is underwater with Wisconsin voters right now, like it or not. Why put that onus on Judge Rebecca Bradley, who has announced her candidacy in next spring’s election?

I would assume Walker got Bradley's approval of the appointment. So she doesn't seem too worried about an association with Walker hurting her election chances.

Curious George said...

Now known as the "Not batshit crazy" Walsh.

Roughcoat said...

Dear Baby Boomers: Get out of the way already.

Make me, punk. Go ahead. Try.

Big Mike said...

On second reading, is it truly unprecedented? Or is this yet another Democrat "made up fact"?

BarrySanders20 said...

She was going to be associated with Walker regardless, so might as well start at the top in the election. Walker appointed her to the circuit court and court of appeals. She won her elections to stay on both the circuit court (in Milwaukee County, not easy for a Walker appointee) and on the court of appeals. So she is electable. And young, attractive, smart, and conservative. A leftist's nightmare.

The comments at the link are great.

Roughcoat said...

Truly, they couldn't be worse.

News flash, genius: they are.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'd've picked a place keeper too, but I don't think this is THAT terrible.

I Callahan said...

News flash, genius: they are.

Obviously, genius: your generation raised them.

garage mahal said...

Interview:

Will you validate ever single law we pass, even if you think it violates current law?

"Yes"

If a Republican breaks the law, will you bail them out?

"Yes"

You're hired.



The Cracker Emcee said...

"Truly, they couldn't be worse.

News flash, genius: they are."

So many of the ones I've met are remarkable people. Y'all need to find a better class of young person.

garage mahal said...

Not sure why Bradley wants to be associated with the Walker stench, but nothing that millions from WMC and Club for Growth can't overcome I suppose.

I Callahan said...

Interview:
Will you validate ever single law we pass, even if you think it violates current law?
"Yes"
If a Republican breaks the law, will you bail them out?
"Yes"
You're hired.


And

millions from WMC and Club for Growth can't overcome I suppose.

Got any actual evidence of the slanders you posted above? Or did this come to you in a dream.

Seriously, dude. Get help.

Drago said...

Alternate Headline: "Walker carries out duties in lawful way. Left freaks out."

Headline below the fold: "Fiorina continues to obey campaign laws. Left freaks out."

Anybody see a pattern?

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Not sure why Bradley wants to be associated with the Walker stench, but nothing that millions from WMC and Club for Growth can't overcome I suppose"

Well, the union millions haven't been able to overcome it...

Drago said...

I Callahan: "Or did this come to you in a dream."

It comes to him via his political betters, whom he invariably parrots in robotic and pavlovian fashion.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Six months to an election next April does not seem particularity close. Still, the filling of an elective office by appointment should always be regarded as suspect. You either get a placeholder who arrives as an already lame duck or you get an appointee having the advantage of incumbency through what is necessarily a back room political deal.

Here in Massachusetts, Democrats did appoint a placeholder to hold Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat until after a primary and special election. That was ostensibly for the benefit of candidates in the Democratic primary. It backfired, as Republican Scott Brown won the special election.

It might have changed the whole trajectory of the Obama Presidency for the better if Massachusetts had held that Senate seat open until it could be filled in the special election, rather Democrats than using the lame duck placeholder to cram through the badly-written Obamacare legislation. They'd have written it better if they'd had to campaign on it or they wouldn't have gotten it through.

The U.S. House of Representatives has the best rule, with the Constitution allowing vacant seats to be filled only by election.

David Begley said...

Was she an Althouse student?

And, if so, how did she respond in class when you applied the Socratic method on her?

mikee said...

Any Democrat in Wisconsin talking about the state Supreme Court, and a smell test that Republicans have to pass, deserves a swift kick in their balls to help them remove their foot from their mouth.

Drago said...

mahal: "...but nothing that millions from WMC and Club for Growth can't overcome I suppose"

2 legs good, 4 legs bad!!

Ann Althouse said...

"Did you have her in any of your classes?"

I really don't know. It was 20 years ago.

jeff said...

Ann, do you find that your students remember you years later but for the life of you you can't place them?

Skipper said...

Of course a Democrat would've done the same. Never pass up an opportunity.

Sigivald said...

Would a Democratic governor have resisted giving a favored judicial candidate this boost?

And would any of the people complaining now about how "unprecedented" the nearness is, be complaining?

(Or would it just be people with an (R) after their name complaining?)

David Begley said...

I am at the Nebraska State Bar Association meeting today. Lawyers sitting by me talking about their law profs at Creighton.

We never forget our law professors.

Drago said...

Has garage called for Bradley to be arrested yet?

It's just a matter of time.

Perhaps a no-knock raid on Bradley's home might yield the criminal evidence we all "know" must be there.

I Callahan said...

We never forget our law professors.

I have a degree in Accounting, so had to take a Business Law course. I distinctly remember the class, what was taught, and enjoyed it a lot - lot's of debating what a law means.

But for some reason, I can't remember the guy's name!!!

:)

Ann Althouse said...

Of course, I remember all my law professors, though it was 35 years ago. The student looks at and listens to the lawprof far more than the lawprof is concentrating on an individual student.

James Pawlak said...

The laws-and-constitution enacted by the People enable the Governor to make such appointments.

Those objecting to the "timing" need only change those laws.

wildswan said...

As I understand it there is an important case coming up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the powers of the Department of Public Instruction (Is it omnipotent?). Without an appointment there would be three liberals and three conservatives and so possibly no decision. The left wants that because they think the DPI should be able to ram Common Core through the schools.

PS. What's wrong with Common Core? Example: The way adding is being taught is the way you add Roman numbers. We use "Arabic numbers" which came from the Hindus. They are easy to add and subtract and that is why they were adopted. Why are little kids being taught to change these easy to use numbers into other "numbers" and then to add these new "numbers" as you add Roman numbers? Because the DPI is run by omnipotent, incompetent leftys who do not listen to parents.

David Begley said...

AA

You are right about who remembers best and the dynamics of the whole situation between teacher and student.

But some professors took a special interest in certain students. As in the Big Ten law prof who was at Creighton for one day for a guest lecture. He propositioned two of my female classmates; one who was married and the other engaged. Being all good Catholics, we were all shocked.

And here's a footnote. At the time the law school had an apartment inside the building; ostensibly for visiting professors or lecturers. Father President Schlegel converted it to the Werner Mediation Institute. Wise move.

kimsch said...

"""It is unprecedented for a Wisconsin governor of any party to appoint a declared judicial candidate to the Supreme Court this close to an election," said Shilling, D-La Crosse. "This power grab sets a terrible precedent and doesn’t pass the smell test.”"

Has there been a vacancy on the Supreme Court this close to an election where an appointment was made? Would ANY appointment this close to an election be "unprecedented" just because it hasn't ever happened until now?

Will Rebecca make the second Justice Bradley concurrently on the Court? Is Ann Bradley still a justice?

paminwi said...

Let's blame Crooks for dying at the wrong time. That son of a bitch. Didn't he KNOW that Walker would be able to appoint someone to fill his spot? What the hell was he doing dying so close an election? This is what Dems are really pissed off at.