Roggensack touted her experience in the race, noting she served seven years on the Court of Appeals and nearly 10 years on the Supreme Court. She had the backing of law enforcement and more than 100 judges, as well as the state Republican Party.What does this clear victory say about the recent struggles in Wisconsin — the protests and the "chokehold" incident? It's very hard to defeat an incumbent judge, but the liberals don't seem to have tried very hard this time. It looked like merely symbolic opposition — as if the race were more of an opportunity to criticize the court — an inherently discordant message as Fallone both criticized and portrayed himself as somehow able to swoop in and make everyone behave better. How would he do that?
Fallone, who had the support of Democrats and unions, contended the high court has grown dysfunctional and said Roggensack needed to be replaced to start to improve sour relationships on the court.
The answer — to my ear — seemed to be that the fix was to give the liberal side of the court a majority. That could never be openly articulated, however, because it's (officially) a nonpartisan election, and to put things politically is to antagonize voters who think judges should decide cases by a purely legal methodology, free from any political influence.
ADDED: It's very hard to defeat an incumbent judge, but:
An Ozaukee County judge [Tom Wolfgram] criticized by his spring election opponent for signing a petition to recall the governor has lost his seat on the bench after 19 years.And:
Dane County Judge Rebecca St. John, a Walker appointee, lost her re-election race, getting 47.4 percent of the vote against lawyer Rhonda Lanford’s 52.5 percent of the vote with 95 percent of the vote counted, according to unofficial results from the Dane County Clerk’s office.Note that both losing incumbents looked political, especially Wolfgram. As for St. John, you have to imagine how being a Walker appointee smells in Madison, Wisconsin.
पोस्ट्स
७४ टिप्पण्या:
Koch Brothers strike again
There were also a number of recall petition signers defeated in a variety of local elections to include long-time incumbents.
A Walker-appointed judge won re-election in Milwaukee County -- the opponent ran entirely on the fact that Walker appointed this judge.
to put things politically is to antagonize votes who think judges should decide cases by a purely legal methodology, free from any political influence
I sometimes think unfortunately the last of those conscientious "votes" died a few years back.
Still, I'm glad to see the evenhanded Roggensack win. Fallone's entire platform apparently consisted of "Roggensack was present when Bradley confronted Prosser! Oh my 'leventy God!"
The voters don't trust law professors.
"[A]s Fallone . . . portrayed himself as somehow able to swoop in and make everyone behave better. How would he do that?"
Floating down from a cloud with an umbrella would be a good start.
"Everything will be great if we just put Democrats in charge".
The US economy from 2008 to 2012, the economic/crime trends of Detroit, Chicago, and California, and the trends where the GOP is in charge belie that claim.
It's like the women who claim if women were in charge of everything, there would be no more war, no more poverty.
When in reality (clear to anyone who knows a woman, i.e., all of us) is that instead of going to war over border violations, resources, citizen safety, national interests, etc, we would end up going to war because two national leaders wore the same dress to a State Dinner. And only the women who have naturally clear skin and/or look good w/o makeup would be forced out of work to live in squalor.
Those were just specific hypothetical examples. You get my drift.
In Waukesha County, Don Pridemore defeated Tony Evers 43,504, 25,766
LOL. Pridemore is a fucking fruitcake.
But did Roggensack have SECRET ROUTERS!
I'm sure he will be indicted any day now. . .
Bitchtits the Uneducated says:
"LOL. Pridemore is a fucking fruitcake."
Quick! Alert the Gaystapo about the blatant homophobia proudly displayed by Fatty McFailedMariiage.
If only he had been smart enough to get into college, perhaps he would have a more enlightened and tolerant outlook that would prevent him from using anti-gay slurs.
This bigotry must be stopped.
Maybe voters just liked the name "Patience Roggensack." I kind of do.
Back to intelligent commentary...
Fallone, who had the support of Democrats and unions
I've seen that line in almost every recap of the election results. I'd have once suggested it was redundant, but is it now the sign of a split in the Dem base?
You're on to something there, Old RPM Daddy. That name sounds like a line of dialog from a Matrix movie.
"Morpheus, they're almost here! What'll we do?!"
"Patience. Roggensack."
As for St. John, you have to imagine how being a Walker appointee smells in Madison, Wisconsin.
About as much as Tony Evers does in Waukesha County:
Q: How many times did GovWalker talk about his partnership with Tony Evers on some educational initiative or other? A: Way more than he talked about any partnership with Don Pridemore (which was exactly zero). And still, Waukesha County goes almost 2-1 for a guy whose announcement for Superintendent of Public Schools was riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Okay, then...
People I voted for lost. I voted against Roggensack -- the incumbent (who will be in her 80s when her term ends!) -- and for St. John, mostly because someone down the street has her name on a placard in their yard.
Pridemore was a horrible candidate who did nothing to help himself.
Just like the Dems and Fallone, it was a missed opportunity to run a legitimate candidate.
"Fallone, who had the support of Democrats and unions"
That's all I know, and all I need to know. I can say without reservation: Great outcome, congratulations Wisconsin!
Next WI SC election is Ann Walsh Bradley.
Conservatives best find a top-notch candidate to take her on. That race is eminently winnable.
So, when does the first of the leftist "judges" come up for re-election?
TosaGuy said...
Next WI SC election is Ann Walsh Bradley.
When is it?
2015.
So plenty of time to find a good candidate.
Ooh! Ooh! Althouse 2015!
If re-elected, AWB would be mid 70s when her next term ends.
We plainly need to make this job much more physically taxing so people want to retire. I say we do away with the Bench and the Chairs the judges sit in. Let them stand all day.
Having Democrats in charge is the goal. Thus, once Democrats are in charge, things are automatically improved and better. It's Mission Accomplished. Everything they do in power is merely to keep themselves there. It doesn't matter that those they profess to help are worse off or that their policies are dramatic failures. So long as the leftists are calling the shots, all is right with the world because they are simply better people due to their high-minded motives.
MadisonMan said...
We plainly need to make this job much more physically taxing so people want to retire.
A couple of the justices tried to introduce Mixed Martial Arts to the deliberations, but it didn't go over very well.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is the next SC justice up for re-election in April 2015.
We can't wait to vote her out.
>>People I voted for lost. I voted against Roggensack -- the incumbent (who will be in her 80s when her term ends!) -- and for St. John, mostly because someone down the street has her name on a placard in their yard.<<
Shirley Abrahamson is 79 and will be 85 when her term ends. Do you also object to her?
Yes, the woman on the court who was choked must go.
It's all about location, location, location....
"Ooh! Ooh! Althouse 2015!"
Althouse famously lacks judicial temperament. And she's not even capable of doing the standard incantations about deciding cases according to the law without going off into some disquisition that people will find confusing/political.
"Yes, the woman on the court who was choked must go."
What was done to her is irrelevant, but what she herself did is relevant. Don't you think?
What was done to her is irrelevant, but what she herself did is relevant. Don't you think?
That sounds like something a battered wife would say.
garage mahal said...
That sounds like something a battered wife would say.
It sounds more like something someone would say if they understood that in a particular marriage, the wife assaulted the husband and he defended himself while stopping short of actually hurting her.
Right wing radio made it very clear that a vote for Roggensack would support Walker and the Republican party interests, especially Act 10, which laid bare the belief that the court is free from political influence deciding on pure legal grounds grounds is nothing but a myth.
^^^
Let's restore the Fairness Doctrine because Vicky McKenna and Mark Belling dominate the local airwaves.
Now that Justice Walsh Bradley is next to face the voters I'm willing to bet we will not hear any well-timed leaks of e-mails or legal depositions designed to influence elections.
roesch/voltaire said...
Right wing radio made it very clear that a vote for Roggensack would support Walker and the Republican party interests, especially Act 10, which laid bare the belief that the court is free from political influence deciding on pure legal grounds grounds is nothing but a myth.
According to RV preventing the court from politicizing is politicizing. And freedom is slavery.
Do you also object to her?
I didn't vote for her. Although at the moment I don't recall the opponent. Not well-qualified as I recall, so it's not like there was a prayer he or she would have been elected.
I am as anti-incumbent as it gets.
"Althouse famously lacks judicial temperament."
You've said such things before, yes. But what is "judicial temperament"? A NYT-like ability to withhold personal views while analyzing facts? A Souter-like tendency to withhold one's actual views until they actually count? A Roggensack talent for holding back when one judge is attacking another physically?
Ann Althouse said...
>>>
Garage babbled: "Yes, the woman on the court who was choked must go."
What was done to her is irrelevant, but what she herself did is relevant. Don't you think?
<<<
Come on, Ann, he's a leftist. Of COURSE he doesn't think, he just emotes. And spouts cheap BS to push his party's agenda.
Bitchtits the Uneducated says:
"That sounds like something a battered wife would say."
Speaking from experience there fatty? Just why did your wife leave you again?
Oh, and garage:
As a voter, the actions of the person who wants my vote matter. What other people did to that person? That's between them. It's not my problem.
She attacked another judge. This shows her complete lack of judicial temperament.
As for Prosser, he was attacked by another judge, and showed the restraint to merely defend himself, and not counter-attack. This shows good judgment on hi part.
IOW, you're 0 - 2.
"That sounds like something a battered wife would say."
It's sexist to assume the female is the victim. Is that what you are doing here? Is that what you assume the public will do?
What a lame war-on-women move. If women are as weak as you would portray them — in this ancient stereotype — how could they be qualified to serve as judges?
Enjoy the quagmire of your incoherent, inconsistent lefty bullshit.
"Right wing radio made it very clear that a vote for Roggensack would support Walker and the Republican party interests, especially Act 10, which laid bare the belief that the court is free from political influence deciding on pure legal grounds grounds is nothing but a myth."
And what did left wing radio do?
Are we to read this decisive victory for Roggensack as yet another endorsement of the Walker agenda?
Do tell!!!
"As for Prosser, he was attacked by another judge, and showed the restraint to merely defend himself, and not counter-attack. This shows good judgment on hi part."
Whatever people think about that characterization, Prosser's term isn't over until 2021, so it will be a long time before we see a judicial election where what he did will be put before the voters.
Prosser will be 79 at that point, so it's unlikely he'll run again.
Come on, Ann, he's a leftist. Of COURSE he doesn't think, he just emotes
That reeks of projection. Prosser, who has a documented history of abusive behavior toward other co-workers, is again caught up in another workplace altercation. Before the incident, Bradley [who does not have any history of abusive behavior towards co-workers]asked for extra security to help with Prosser.
There are deluded morons who think Bradley was at fault, but most conservatives don't care, as it satisfies their inherent authoritarian impulses to begin with.
Roggensack is a big reason why a proper judicial review of the Prosser incident can't even be heard, because the conservative block is blocking it and won't like what they find. Same with Gableman, whose ethics review is still being blocked years later.
roesch/voltaire said...
Right wing radio made it very clear that a vote for Roggensack would support Walker and the Republican party interests, especially Act 10, which laid bare the belief that the court is free from political influence deciding on pure legal grounds grounds is nothing but a myth.
Or it laid bare the fact that Republicans believe that they are on the correct side of the law, and that encouraging people to vote for a fair and impartial judge is in their best interest.
I don't know much about Roggensack's legal abilities. However, I did read some writing by Ed Fallone regarding Act 10 and judge Sumi. He showed that he was willing to misread the existing law in order to reach the results that he wanted. He does not belong on the court, in a teaching position, or anywhere in a civil society.
"Enjoy the quagmire of your incoherent, inconsistent lefty bullshit."
This does sum up the offerings of Bitchtits the Uneducated pretty succinctly.
Pithy.
The only important thing to glean from the over-hyped "physical attack" is that judges are just like the rest of us, not particularly smarter, more judicial, well behaved or reason driven. Therefore, we should resort to them as little as possible. Lets keep things to a wider vote as much as possible. A couple nuts in such a small group can really skew things.
'garage mahal said...
Yes, the woman on the court who was choked must go.'
Really? So her attacking Prosser and then Prosser defending himself means that Bradley was choked?
And yet another great example of how Leftists 'think'.
GM you remind of the guy who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan.
tiger said...
GM you remind of the guy who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan.
You can't take anything garage says seriously. He's a troll: his only goal is finding and pushing people's hot buttons so the thread deteriorates into nonsense while he laughs.
"Althouse famously lacks judicial temperament. And she's not even..."
Rabel likes the third person self-reference.
Althouse/2015
Good.
The reason the lefties did not campaign very hard is that they had essentially no chance. Incumbency sure helps but their candidate was a nothing. That means the somethings (assuming there are any) chose not to run.
And even the true believers were getting tired of pouring money into losing causes.
The big winners were the voters, who once again sent the message to stop playing games and get to work.
garage: "Prosser, who has a documented history of abusive behavior toward other co-workers...."
LOL
The only one being violent was Roggensack.
The only one being violent was Roggensack.
I think you probably meant Bradley, you dunce?
Althouse: you really need to find some better quality trolls.
garage mahal said...
"Yes, the woman on the court who was choked must go."
No she must be re-elected like all the rest.
Whether she must go will be up to the voters. You lefties love voters, except when they don't vote the way you think they should.
Then you want to call in the judges to fix things the way you want them.
Now that is not a trait found exclusively in liberals. Which is one of the many reasons why the courts should show a lot more restraint.
Unfortunately the little lawyers beavering away in law school are not being taught restraint. They are learning how morally and intellectually superior they are to the elected representatives of the people, and thus to the people themselves. That has always seemed to me the central notion of critical legal studies, and whatever residue of that particular plague still courses through the brains of the new initiates.
Unless authoring a meanspirited, lawless order and then leading her little posse of alleged "conservatives" into Justice Bradley's chambers to insist on its immediate publication to allay the concerns of Republican allies in the Wisconsin legislature counts as having "almost nothing to do with" the subsequent confrontation among justices.
Meanspirited in the sense that the order is practically a personal attack on Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi, in whose courtroom the Republican legislators' attorneys freely admitted they had violated both the Wisconsin statutes and the Wisconsin constitution.
Lawless in the sense that Justice Roggensack and her Republican pals invented a jurisidictional authority for the Wisconsin Supreme Court that not only is not found in the State constitution but is explicitly contraindicated in the rules of appellate procedure: There is no such thing as "supervisory/original jurisdiction." They represent separate grounds for a party having her case heard by the Supreme Court. Link.
It's all a sick fucking joke.
garage mahal said...
Althouse: you really need to find some better quality trolls.
4/3/13, 2:58 PM
This sure comes off like a resignation.
garage: "I think you probably meant Bradley, you dunce?"
LOL
Liberal justices all look alike to me!
Still waiting on all those links from you which demonstrate American right wing support for Putin.
When will you be posting those?
LOL
dunce indeed.
I just believe what Vicki on 1310 tells me and don't have much time for others-- but perhaps you are correct that both the right and the left no longer care or know that the courts are impartial and free of political and monied influence.
My last post was in response to David, not to the two inane trolls, who together can't formulate one argument.
Everyone knows that you always must have Patience.
Althouse: you really need to find some better quality trolls.
If the Professor cleaned out her trolls, I suspect you'd be the first to go.
Bitchtits with more of his "incoherent, inconsistent lefty bullshit."
No response for Ann smacking your around like the little uneducated retard you are, eh fatty?
How embarassing for you.
garage mahal said...
My last post was in response to David, not to the two inane trolls, who together can't formulate one argument.
How amusing garage would write a comment seeming to value argument. He who has commented for years without once saying anything advancing anyone's understanding of any subject.
How embarassing for you.
Nobody has attempted to rebut my posts, including you, who claims to be a lawyer*
*LOL
Also, it's spelled embarrassing.
garage said a bunch of BS:
>>>
That reeks of projection. Prosser, who has a documented history of abusive behavior toward other co-workers, is again caught up in another workplace altercation. Before the incident, Bradley [who does not have any history of abusive behavior towards co-workers]asked for extra security to help with Prosser.
<<<
Bradley charged Prosser. Prosser put out his hands to catch her, and the hand hit her neck.
Now, what of that is demonstrably false? Link to believable site required.
Because if the above is true (and to the best of my knowledge it is), none of what you claim has any value, even if it is true. (If anything, those facts make Bradley's request for "protection" look like part of a per-meditated plot to disgrace Prosser: first she dishonestly claims she's afraid of Prosser, then she attacks him and uses his defense as "proof" she was right to "be afraid".)
>>>
Roggensack is a big reason why a proper judicial review of the Prosser incident can't even be heard, because the conservative block is blocking it and won't like what they find. Same with Gableman, whose ethics review is still being blocked years later.
<<<
Hmm, so in your fantasy world, a witness to a crime can legitimately act as a judge "trying" the criminal case? Would that be because, as a leftist, you think that the "proper" role of the judge is merely to supply the answer you want to hear, so issues of objectivity et. al. have no place?
You really got me there fatty, the fact that there was a typo in what I quickly wrote completely negates the fact that Althouse laid the smack down on your chubby leftist ass.
It also completely negates the fact that your marriage was a failure.
It also completely negates the fact that your months of shrieking about SECRET ROUTERS! came to absolutely fuck all.
It negates all these things, but only in your stupid-little-barely made-it-through-high-school head.
In the real world, it means I don't run spell check, and you remain a sad failure in life and commenting.
You really got me there fatty, the fact that there was a typo in what I quickly wrote completely negates the fact that Althouse laid the smack down on your chubby leftist ass.
To an insecure little nitwit like you, who goes by the moniker "President Moms Jeans", I'm sure Althouse's lame post-feminism tripe does qualify as a "smack down".
Nitwit? Why don't you call me a fruitcake like you did with Pridemore?
Bigot!
But let's get back to the statement that Althouse took your fat ass to the woodshed over.
Bitchtits the Uneducated says:
"That sounds like something a battered wife would say."
I will repeat myself, it sounds like you are speaking from some experience regarding battered wives there tubby. You never explain why your wife left you.
No wonder you didn't get custody.
I hear crickets. Surprise surprise.
garage: "To an insecure little nitwit like you,...."
LOL
Now that, my friends, is projection....
garage mahal,
Althouse: you really need to find some better quality trolls.
If she does, will you leave?
(I volunteer to start a search committee.)
Ann Althouse said...
"That sounds like something a battered wife would say."
It's sexist to assume the female is the victim. Is that what you are doing here? Is that what you assume the public will do?
What a lame war-on-women move. If women are as weak as you would portray them — in this ancient stereotype — how could they be qualified to serve as judges?
Enjoy the quagmire of your incoherent, inconsistent lefty bullshit.
Hobbs is a very lucky tiger.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा