That's how Trump put it on Truth Social, quoted in "Trump Jumps Into a Major Wisconsin Court Race With an Endorsement/The president threw his support to Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in a race for control of the battleground state’s top court. Elon Musk has spent millions of dollars on the contest" (NYT).
Does it help a state supreme court candidate to be so closely aligned with Trump? Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law?
Well, as Trump portrays it, it's the other side that's political. His guy is there to uphold the law and protect our rights. Trump is a political figure, but he respects the traditional values of the judiciary and vouches for Brad Schimel as an upholder of those values. Of course, that's utter garbage to the other side. This is the conventional discourse of judicial elections in Wisconsin. It's possible that the appeal to traditional values motivates conservatives more than liberals, but is Trump's position on traditional values credible, or does his appearance fire up the Trump haters?
Most important here is that the judicial election is isolated from more political elections, so there tends to be a low turnout. There are a lot of people in Wisconsin who love Trump. Maybe these people wouldn't even notice the judicial election or wouldn't bother to vote, but if Trump says, come on, this matters, get out there, maybe they'll stampede to the polls. Yes, it's a cue to Trump haters to get out there and cancel those votes, but the anti-Trumpers are a step behind.
The relevant election day is April 1st. Trump says vote early. If you wait until election day, you might forget or you might have something else going on.
Posts
43 comments:
Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law?
Some say the same about the Attorney General, but then they voted for Letitia James. Trump is well aware of this.
Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law?
Well, as Trump portrays it, it's the other side that's political.
Well, from a thousand miles away in the Shenandoah Valley it certainly appears as though Trump is correct. Why would you say otherwise?
And the point of voting early is to block crooked Ben Wikler from doing in Republican strongholds what the crooked Democrats of Arizona did in Maricopa County in 2022.
“ Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law?”
We do here in Nebraska. No campaigning. No fundraising. No TV commercials.
Ann:
Was Brad Schimel in any of your classes?
The Kansas state legislature just voted to place a statewide ballot measure on their August 2026 ballot that, if approved, will change the way they choose their supreme court justices from a system similar to what is in place in Nebraska to straightforward elections like what we have in Wisconsin. I like to be able to vote on them.
"Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law?"
I used to think that back when I was 12 and just discovered civics on Saturday morning cartoons via that guy who wanted to be a bill on Capital Hill.
But then I hear Democrat NY Senator Chuck Schumer crowing about how many Democrat judges they have got out there all ruling against Trump to thwart his agenda, and I realized that there is no such thing as politically neutral arbiters of the law.
That is a fantasy that Democrats sell to rubes in order to get Republicans to lay down their weapons.
Democrats only want Democrat judges ruling for Democrats; but Republican judges also ruling for Democrats. And never Republican judges ruling for Republicans.
As Trump noted recently: How come we ALWAYS know how the 4 Democrat Supreme Court Justices are going to rule, but we have to wait to see how the Republicans are going to vote and whether they will join with the Democrats.
Nobody ever wonders if the Democrat justices are going to join the Republicans because they never do.
"Was Brad Schimel in any of your classes?"
It's very hard to remember all the names of students so that you recognize them if their names arise in the news much later.
I see that he graduated from UW Law School and his opponent, Susan Crawford, graduated from the University of Iowa Law School.
Yes it's much better to lie about the fake premise that judges are neutral arbitors of the law without political influence. That way it's easier to place a Halo around political decisions by courts claiming that they are merely following the law. Lawyers are the most disgusting class people on the planet because they are led by men who wear dresses and think they are cardinals in a great church who demand complete obeisance from the public.
Leslie Graves:
I was a lawyer alternate on the Judicial Nomination Committee for the Court of Appeals. My fellow lawyers voted for me.
There were five nominees. All but one of them were very well qualified and all were qualified. But if we had judicial elections, some not qualified lawyers could win elections and some real political hacks could end up on the bench.
It seems to me that a lot of Crawford's ads focus on saving abortion.
Ann, seriously, forget the "should be". Do you believe that today judges ARE politically neutral arbiters of the law? They clearly are not. And the most politically slanted of them are inarguably the ones that have been carefully developed and placed there by Democrats. They're like the goalies of political hockey for Team Democrat. Their sacred mission is to obstruct or stop any Republican policy from scoring...no matter what any law or constitution says.
Elon is literally offering Wisconsin voters $100 in exchange for their vote but please, let us talk about how Trump holds dear the traditional values of the judiciary.
Judges could be A.I. programs carefully designed to be nonpartisan and fair. Perfect judges, but you can't bribe them, so that's out.
Why it seems like only yesterday Trump was working overtime to discourage Republican early voting, but in fact it was 2020. Who says an old dog can’t learn new tricks?
"Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law? "
i'm ASSUMING you're talking about non-Democrat judges?
not the ones that RUN on overturning voter laws?
Lucille Ballers said...
Elon is literally offering Wisconsin voters $100 in exchange for their vote but please, let us talk about how Trump holds dear the traditional values of the judiciary.
Huh, I'm a Wisconsin voter and I haven't heard a thing from Elon. Are you sure he said that? Hey Elon I want my $100 bucks!
"Lucille Ballers said...
Elon is literally offering Wisconsin voters $100 in exchange for their vote but please, let us talk about how Trump holds dear the traditional values of the judiciary."
I think you need a dictionary.
I'm sorry, but every time I see the name of the Republican candidate, I read "Schlemiel." Is it just me?
If you wait until election day, you might forget or you might have something else going on.
We’ll, I’ve been distracted by the NCAA basketball tournament for the last several days, but I was bombarded by so many ridiculous Crawford ads during the breaks that it reminded me to go vote early for Schimel, which I did yesterday!
Althouse said: "Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law? " I know I do, but I also know that the same people who gave us the lying corrupt Protasiewicz last go around are all in for Crawford, so I am sure she will be the exact opposite of politically neutral. And I know you can't win an election in the peoples republic of Dane County without being a crazed liberal. And as much as the liberals are complaining about Musk putting some money into the campaign, Soros and Pritzker are putting even more cash behind Crawford, who like Protasiewicz will legislate from the bench in favor of the Democratic party.
"Elon is literally offering Wisconsin voters $100 in exchange for their vote but please..."
False. You just get $100 for signing a petition that says you believe in judicial restraint or the rule of law or some such generic proposition. There's nothing about which candidate or even a promise to vote. You're giving them your name and email address. That's all.
Trump gave his public endorsement to Schimel.
Now do Soros and Crawford.
Nebraska can have non-partisan judges because its a state full of reaonable Republicans. And usually has a Republican state Government. Has the Nebraska Supreme court ever gone full crazy left? I doubt it.
That's not the case elsewhere. In most states the State Supreme court are political, and they're making decisions based on their politics - not matter how they dress it up and pretend. Like the Democrats Justices on the SCOTUS, most liberal/left state justices always vote the party line - no matter what.
We need to quit pretending that Liberal/left justices appointed by Democrats are EVER going to be non-activist, and non-partisan, judges. That's just a fool's paradise.
That's why you need judges to be elected - and subject to recall. They're not apolitical legal X-burts, they're politicians in black robes.
Where the law intersects with politics, the judges will mostly rule based on their own political views. To believe otherwise is moronic.
I'm still shocked that New Jersey voters sat by and let their Supreme Court impose a state income tax. I don't slightest doubt the Washington Supreme Court would LOVE to do the same thing.
This gets back to David Shor's polling showing it is now Republicans who need to turn out their vote to win. They have the numbers, but they also have more voters who are less motivated.
See folks? All it takes for engagement in criticizing advocate judges is for Republicans to try and get some…
I think this is good strategy for the Republicans. The low-propensity voters these days tend far more Republican than Democrat, and anything that gets them to turn out in big numbers will be a winner.
The Democrats are already wildly angry and will show up regardless. Those who don't physically vote on their own are very likely to have a George Soros tentacle fraudulently cast a vote in their name, especially in urban districts.
If I were the candidate, I'd ask Trump to hold several rallies in the state.
Begley, I read the rules for judge selection in Nebraska and despite the weak built in protections a Governor like Hochul or Whitmer or Walz could easily use them to establish total control of the judiciary.
Leftists use the word "Literally" too much.
Speaking of that, Senator Schumer had this to say:
"We did put 235 judges, progressive judges...last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time..."
(Originally via Libs of TikTok: Twitter link.)
I've been offered $250 for contacting my friends and neighbors on behalf of someone; I've received a request form to request a mail-in ballot. The request form was already filled out with my name and address; I've received several chiding e-mails because I haven't voted early yet; I've received texts for "Diane" and "Roy" - or was its Ralph?. They seemed sure I was on their side but I'm pretty sure I am not.
I don't mind Trump telling me to get going; I know how messed up the Wisconsin Supreme Court is already. But I think that judges replacing the opposition party is a bigger issue than an election can resolve. For one thing Judges aren't the legislature and they shouldn't intervene as pseudo-legislators whentheir chosen party becomes the minority. For another, judges never strike bargains or try for consensus or make a deal (though come to think of it neither do the Dems these days.) Still these judges are really hardening the sides in a very destructive way.
Wisconsin is the epitome of a swing state, if there is a high turnout Republicans will win. If Democrats win they will wait till the last minute and file an emergency suit to gerrymander the 26 house race and there will be no time for an appeal to scotus before the election.
Trump at least talks about finding neutral arbitrors and relying on the law and constitution as the framework around which judicial decisions are made. Dems talk exclusively of outcomes.
That one judge makes such a difference is a condemnation of the entire state government. As Dementia Joe would say, "C'mon, guys!"
Unfortunately, we're out of the country and can't vote. I believe we left too early to vote absentee (though to be honest, I didn't look into it).
You're giving them your name and email address. That's all
That's worth a lot more than $100 for me. Pass. Sorry Elon!
"Nebraska can have non-partisan judges because its a state full of reaonable Republicans. And usually has a Republican state Government."
Begley doesn't seem to understand this.
Hey Ann! If you listen carefully to Crawford’s ads she says “I will do what’s right”! WTH is that? Her sense of right and wrong is guiding her decisions?
No freaking way! She never mentions, IN ANY AD, that she will follow the law as written.
She doesn’t deserve anyone’s vote if that’s how she sees being a WI SC Justice.
And the idiot Dems who are saying Elon is paying for your vote obviously have very short memories. He did the same thing in Pennsylvania and it found to be legal.
You don’t have to like it-but stop lying about it.
I see on Twitter that Crawford (allegedly - I haven't researched it myself) once sentenced a pedophile who molested a 7-year-old to only 4 years in prison, and is unapologetic about it: link.
“ It's possible that the appeal to traditional values motivates conservatives more than liberals, but is Trump's position on traditional values credible, or does his appearance fire up the Trump haters?”
Trump often sounds like the last page of a Superman comic book, but it hasn’t hurt his numbers yet.
On the other side, democrats promoting their demojudge say, “ vote for us and we will gerrymander the shit out of the state so bad it will take you 2 weeks to walk across one district.”
There is much to be said for honesty.
Sadly, I do not believe that all of us, or even most of us, want judges to be apolitical neutral arbiters of the law. And that especially includes most Internet pundits and commentators, including on this site. Opinionated folks just want their side to win, the law be damned. They delude themselves into thinking their policy preferences are always in perfect alignment with the law, and courts that disagree are rogue and lawless. One reason I visit this blog is that Ann is not that. I think she tries earnestly to be an honest broker, even if I find her support of Roe mystifying.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.