"That speech puts Cory Booker as one of the leaders for the Democratic Party for 2028."

Said "Frank Luntz: Booker marathon speech 'may have changed the course of political history'" (The Hill).

Everyone's talking like Trump now. Just get rid of the weasel word "may" and you have Trump-style rhetoric: Booker's speech changed the course of political history.

And then there was Elon Musk the other day, saying that the Wisconsin Supreme Court election would affect the entire destiny of humanity. No, he wasn't that Trumpian. He had weasel words. He said "I feel like this is one of those things that may not seem that it’s going to affect the entire destiny of humanity, but I think it will."

Speaking of speaking bluntly, here's Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley talking about that election:

"A Wisconsin Supreme Court justice on Tuesday invoked the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II during oral arguments for a challenge to the state's controversial stay-at-home order...."

"The Wisconsin Legislature filed a lawsuit last month in an attempt to reopen the state and block the extension of the stay-at-home order issued by state health officials to slow the spread of the coronavirus. 'I'll direct your attention to another time in history, in the Korematsu decision, where the [U.S. Supreme Court] said the need for action was great and time was short and that justified, and I'm quoting, 'assembling together and placing under guard all those of Japanese ancestry' in assembly centers during World War II,' said [Justice Rebecca] Bradley.... 'Could the [Department of Health Services] secretary under this broad delegation of legislative power or legislative-like power order people out of their homes into centers where are they are properly social distanced in order to combat the pandemic?... The point of my question is what are the limits, constitutional or statutory? There have to be some, don't there, counsel?... My question for you is where in the Constitution did the people of Wisconsin confer authority on a single unelected Cabinet secretary to compel almost six million people to stay at home and close their businesses and face imprisonment if they don't comply with no input from the legislature without the consent of the people? Isn't it the very definition of tyranny for one person to order people to be imprisoned for going to work?'"

CNN reports.

MEANWHILE: A Southern District of New York judge un-cancelled the New York primary, the NYT reports. Democratic members of the State’s Board of Elections made the decision to cancel the primary, and the challenge was brought by Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang.

“If all but one of the presidential candidates are removed from the ballot and the primary is not held, Delegate Plaintiffs will be deprived of the opportunity to compete for delegate slots and shape the course of events at the Convention, and voters will lose the chance to express their support for delegates who share their views, [U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres wrote]. “The loss of these First Amendment rights is a heavy hardship."

Torres was appointed by Obama.

"It’s a question every candidate for state Supreme Court is asked: Which U.S. Supreme Court justices do you most admire?"

Writes the left/liberal Bill Lueders at the end of his Isthmus piece "Battle for the [Wisconsin Supreme] court/Bradley v. Kloppenburg is a classic contest between two visions of the role of law":

Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg...  has picked Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor. Her rival, Justice Rebecca Bradley, finds this highly objectionable. These two justices, she accuses, “espouse a judicial philosophy that believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it should change to reflect changing social and political conditions.”

But here is what Kloppenburg actually says about Ginsburg and Sotomayor: “They seem to share my view of the Constitution as protecting individual rights and promoting a more fair and equal society.”

Does Bradley disagree that the Constitution calls for protecting individual rights and promoting equality? “There are individual rights that are protected under the Constitution,” Bradley replies. “But when she talks about a more equal society, that’s a very subjective statement,” one whose meaning can vary from judge to judge.

Bradley named Antonin Scalia, before his recent death, as the U.S. Supreme Court justice she most admires, along with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “These three justices have the judicial philosophy I follow,” she says, she says, including their embrace of originalism: the notion that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the Founding Fathers’ original intent. She notes that Scalia exhibited qualities that surprised others, such as being “protective of the rights of criminal defendants.”

The question is not who's correct about how to interpret the Constitution. We're having an election. The people get to vote on how they think the Constitution (and all the other law) should be interpreted. Kloppenburg and Bradley have clearly stated what you need to know, Wisconsin voters. Pick!

Who's right about interpretation and who would you pick?

I'd pick Bradley — not because she's right but because I think I'll like the results.

I'd pick Kloppenburg — not because she's right but because I think I'll like the results.

You pick the one whose methodology is correct, so: Bradley.

You pick the one whose methodology is correct, so: Kloppenburg.

I'd pick Bradley, with a vague sense that she's right and I'll like the results.

I'd pick Kloppenburg, with a vague sense that she's right and I'll like the results.

These answers are making me feel that I shouldn't be voting for a state supreme court justice.

 

pollcode.com free polls

About those Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates....

1. Rebecca Bradley wrote a column when she was a college student 24 years ago in which she said that Camille Paglia had "legitimately suggested that women play a role in date rape." Paglia had used the words "fools" and "idiots" to refer to women who get drunk at frat parties and said: "Feminists will call this 'blaming the victim.' I call it common sense." Bradley also wrote (all those years ago): "I intend to expose the feminist movement as largely composed of angry, militant, man-hating lesbians who abhor the traditional family."

2. JoAnne Kloppenburg, speaking at a candidate forum last month, said: "Any president that you might name would highlight how internally complex every person is. President Lincoln had slaves and yet he led this country in emancipating black people from slavery." Obviously, Lincoln never owned slaves.

Here's that whole forum, where you can see both candidates speaking at length. The 2 tidbits above are what's viral today, but it's probably a good idea to go beyond that sort of material as you decide how to vote. I know that sounds absurdly pedantic, and what I really believe is that people can tell that there is a liberal and a conservative candidate and they will vote based on their political preference.

4 weeks before the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, opponents of Walker-appointee Rebecca Bradley turn up some nasty writing she did as a college student 24 years ago.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. Among the choice quotations from 1992:

"How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments."

"Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn't know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb. Have I offended anyone? Good — some of you really need to wake up."

"But the homosexuals and drug addicts who do essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior deservedly receive none of my sympathy."

"[W]hy is a student government on a Catholic campus attempting to bring legitimacy to an abnormal sexual preference?"

You know, if Bradley were Donald Trump, her popularity would surge. Maybe the voters are hungry for outrageous tough talk and the flouting of political correctness.

But Bradley has apologized. She issued a written statement assuring us that the old remarks "have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist." This is, in her view, a "blatant mudslinging campaign to distract the people from the issues."

Her opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, rejects the apology and connects the old remarks to who Bradley is now: she's allied herself with Scott Walker and Scott Walker is "against gay rights." (Scott Walker opposed same-sex marriage, even in the era after which Barack Obama evolved into support for it.)

There's only been one poll, and it shows the candidates at 37% (Bradley) and 36% (Kloppenburg). The election is April 5th, the same day as the presidential primary, so I'd been thinking the result will be affected by what's happening in the 2 presidential races. If Hillary has it locked up on the Democratic side, maybe Democrats won't bother to come out. And yet I think there are quite a few people who would want to vote for Bernie Sanders anyway or who'd cross over to the GOP side to vote against Donald Trump. (It's an open primary.) If Trump has clinched or all but clinched the nomination, will Republicans drag themselves to the polls? I'm seeing an advantage for Kloppenburg, quite aside from this new controversy.

Anyway, here's one of Bradley's old writings. I read the whole thing and was struck by the appearance of the old Nancy Reagan slogan, "Just say no":

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.)

"Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign..."

"... according to three Republicans familiar with his decision who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern...."

As the old song goes: We've got to keep him in Madtown.



Last February, I said: "Who knew that line ['We've got to keep him in Madtown'] would within 3 years turn into a limitation on his career? And who else do we have for Wisconsin? I'm not pushing him for President. I'm just glad he's helping us here with our problems."

Welcome back home, Governor.

UPDATE: He's suspending his campaign and also: "I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current frontrunner."

He began with condolences to the family of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patrick Crooks, which was the first I had heard that Justice Crooks had died. We already knew that Crooks was not running for reelection as his term ends after this year. Now, instead of an election between newcomers, Governor Walker can make an appointment, a conservative who will face the election as an incumbent.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says:

[Justice Crooks] did come to work on Monday for an administrative hearing but excused himself before the session was over and was later found dead in his chambers. Police and paramedics arrived at the court.

Three people had announced they were running for Crooks' position, prior to his formal announcement of his retirement. They include Milwaukee Circuit Judge Joseph Donald, Court of Appeals judges Joann Kloppenberg and Rebecca Bradley. Gov. Scott Walker could appoint someone to Crooks' seat prior to the spring election, or choose to leave it open.

Crooks was often regarded as a swing or more independent vote on the frequently divided court, voting with the liberal justices more often than Justice David Prosser, who also sided with both liberal and conservative factions depending on the case.