April 2, 2019

"The April 2 election is for the seat held for 43 years by Justice Shirley Abrahamson, one of the [Wisconsin Supreme C]ourt’s three liberals."

"If Neubauer wins, that could set the stage for liberals to gain control of the court next year, when conservative Justice Dan Kelly, like [her opponent Brian] Hagedorn an appointee of Walker, is set to face voters. But all of this depends on whether Neubauer is in fact a liberal. And that is something she absolutely refuses to admit. In fact, Neubauer, who has personal and family ties to Democrats (her husband, Jeff, is the former state party chair; her daughter, Greta, is a Democratic lawmaker), has run one of the most opaque campaigns for state Supreme Court in recent years. At the candidates’ March 15 debate before the State Bar of Wisconsin, she ducked questions, endlessly repeated her campaign talking points — that she is 'fair, impartial and independent' and backed by 345 past and present Wisconsin judges, way more than Hagedorn — and falsely claimed that the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibited her from commenting on any issue that may come before the court. (Other candidates have gone much further in answering questions about where they stand, without any knocks on the door by the Judicial Police.)"

Wrote Bill Lueders in Isthmus. Was he concerned that the "liberal" branding was needed to get out the Madison vote for Neubauer? It's completely typical for Supreme Court candidates to portray themselves as utterly neutral and devoted to the law, because that is their apt understanding of how most voters think about the role of the judge. Hagedorn also takes this neutral approach, and Lueders doesn't like that either:
Hagedorn, 41, claims that what he thinks about anything is irrelevant to his role as a judge, and that anyone who brings it up is attacking his religion. It’s a remarkably dishonest contention, especially given that he has in the past personally urged people to back the election of a conservative justice to preserve Walker’s attack on public employee unions and other explicitly political reasons.
"To preserve Walker’s attack on public employee unions" = to refrain from overturning the work of the democratically elected branches of government.

Basically, the irritating problem is that the popular conception of the role of judges — as neutral and not activist — overlaps much more comfortably with what conservative judges do, and that makes it harder to run as the liberal candidate, especially when things depend on getting out the vote and it's a low-profile election, like today's.

11 comments:

Leland said...

And that is something she absolutely refuses to admit.

Those that refuse labels do so because they know the applicable label wouldn't build a large coalition of voters. Instead, they run on their pedigree, which should be questioned more and more after the recent FBI bribery busts.

Sebastian said...

"Basically, the irritating problem is that the popular conception of the role of judges — as neutral and not activist — overlaps much more comfortably with what conservative judges do."

Yes, it is very irritating that the people want judges to be "neutral" and that the people agree with "conservatives" who want judges to be "neutral," by contrast with "liberals" who want the law to be just another tool and who have to be systematically dishonest in their self-presentation--except at the national level, where they are now out-and-proud progs.

Nonapod said...

Somehow I imagine this guy is fretting over nothing. Even when they claim to be conservative I assume all judical candidates are big government, progressive busy bodies until proven otherwise. It's been my experience that most people who want to be judges seem to have a tendency towards interventionalism and a desire to legislate from the bench. It's a profession that attracts control freaks.

Mike Sylwester said...

Ask Neubauer what she thought about the use of the state's John Doe law to investigate Scott Walker and his supporters.

wildswan said...

Is she a liberal? Follow the money. Eric Holder sent $300,000 to Neubauer. Liberal money from outside the state is pouring into Neubauer.

Curious George said...

Is she a liberal? Follow the money. Eric Holder sent $300,000 to Neubauer. Liberal money from outside the state is pouring into Neubauer.

"Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin — the political arm of the state chapter — has endorsed Neubauer and this week began spending $100,000 on digital ads supporting her."

So yeah.

Dan from Madison said...

The liberals are the ones who should be having the freakout since this is for Abrahamson's seat. I don't see how anyone could write about it any other way but sure, it got handled.

Charlie Eklund said...

I wonder if the person who wins Justice Abrahamson’s seat will insist on being called Chief Justice..

Mark said...

I have gotten texts and phone calls from Hagedorn supporters at least once daily for the past week.

The complaints about outside money for Neubauer are easy to ignore after ladies fromAf0 with deep southern accents called me twice in the last week.

Caligula said...

What makes Holder bolder is the possibility of court-ordered redistricting. Because it's just not fair that Wisconsin Democrats are concentrated in Milwaukee and Dane Counties, something must be done!

The model is the redistricting ordered by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Maillard Reactionary said...

There really are people named "Hagedorn"?

For some reason, it seems like an occasion of trauma to me. But that's me and 'nuff said about that.

Separately, Caligula wonders "What makes Holder bolder..."

Well lots of things, potentially. The boulder on his shoulder, for instance (especially if he's feelin' kind of older). That will get your attention, even if you're a Democrat.

OK, I'm signing off now. This time I really mean it.