Three candidates seek to be the newest justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. One will be eliminated in Tuesday’s primary election (02-20-18). We turn over the Stately Manor to Torrey Jaeckle, a local business man.
So I’m doing my research on who to vote for in tomorrow’s Wisconsin Supreme Court primary, and I go to each candidate’s web page to do my due diligence:
Candidate #1: I’m greeted by a video that says this candidate will stand up to the “extreme agenda” of a particular political figure, and that this candidate will “take on [said particular political figure], [insert select business industry here], and [insert select type of business here].”
Candidate #2: I’m greeted by a video that begins with a particular political figure, and told how this candidate will protect us from this person, and will “defend our values.”
Candidate #3: No video, but I am greeted by a clear description of this candidate’s judicial philosophy, which states that, “The role of a judge or justice is to interpret and apply the law, not rewrite the law… When the constitutionality of a law is questioned, the judiciary serves an important role as a legal check on the actions of the other two branches, and appropriately declares when they have overstepped their lawful authority. When a court is asked to interpret a law, its role is to declare what the law is, based on what the legislative and executive branches have done, and not what the court thinks it should be. Following these principles, the judiciary should never serve as a political check on the actions of the other two branches. It is not the role of a court to veto, or rewrite, laws that it believes are unwise or imprudent.”
Note, I purposely didn’t name any politicians, industries, companies, etc. referenced by two of these judges. The names don’t matter. The fact that I despise one of those politicians doesn’t matter. The fact that I agree with some of their sentiments doesn’t matter. Because the role of the court isn’t to implement an agenda, promulgate values, or attack specific individuals, industries, or groups of people. The role of the court is exactly as laid out by Candidate #3.
They say “justices is blind”, but it appears only one candidate understands that.
Your Squire is not as circumspect. The white lab coasts ran the data through Ol’ Sparky, our Eisenhower-era mainframe computer. It announced its verdict with a loud clank and a blinding light show of exploding vacuum tubes befitting the opening of the Korean Olympics: Michael Screnock. (Endorsements from 45 sheriffs!)
Vote for a scofflaw, vote Screnock. Want judicial experience, vote Dallet
It’s become second nature for local liberals to spew their venom at Scott Walker (aka “particular political figure”) at every opportunity, all the while bewailing how “partisan” and “politicized” the State Supreme Court has become. I’m sure the ads for Dallet and Burns play well in Madison–after all, they’re tailored precisely to appeal to the preening “progressives” who imagine themselves on a divine crusade to slay the anti-Christ. But I doubt they have the same effect in the rest of the state where everyone’s favorite pastime ISN’T painting horns and a pitchfork on images of the Governor.
Well, walker is a politician, elected to a partisan position, and has played the partisan card whenever and wherever possible. WI SC justices aren’t supposed to be partisan. Burns sure is, Screnock sure is. I don’t know about how their ads play in Madison, but the folks I talk to up here in the far NE part of the state aren’t fans of either. Dallet seems to be the most middle of the road, and has by far the most experience on the bench.
agree…folks are feeling the same way in Adams Co. Time for an upgrade Dave?