Make no mistake about it. In Tuesday’s state supreme court race, Michael Screnock is the conservative and Rebecca Dallet is the liberal.
The difference between the two is whether one interprets the law as written (Screnock) or as one would wish the law to be written (Dallet).
That is why the Left is pulling out all the stops in this campaign and the right is countering. Failing to persuade the people of Wisconsin through the ballot box, our acquaintances on the Left have resorted to the courts to write policy. They’ve appealed to the courts to overturn Act 10 after voters reaffirmed their support, and failed. They’ve asked the courts to strike down Right to Work, without success. They cry “gerrymandering” after each lost election, even though a Democrat won the Trump-voting 10th Senate District in a special election this year.
That is what the Rebecca Dallet campaign for state Supreme Court is all about. You don’t go to San Francisco, to Nancy Pelosi’s backyard, groveling for cash without promising to be a social justice warrior in robes. Dallet has San Francisco values; Screnock played the tuba in the University of Wisconsin-Madison marching band.
ACLU backs abortion, race-based justice, and Dallet
If there was ever any doubt of its partisan nature, the ACLU dropped a campaign card in the Stately Manor’s postal box. Dallet, the ACLU brags, supports LGBT rights, is opposed to Voter I.D. laws, and is pro-abortion without restriction. (Planned Parenthood endorses Dallet.)
On what it calls “criminal justice reform,” the ACLU quotes Dallet thusly:
“There is clearly a problem with mass incarceration and the racial bias that permeates the system. Wisconsin should be especially ashamed that we incarcerate African-Americans at a vastly higher rate than other racial groups.”
Your Squire has elucidated on the phenomenon of disparate impact, wherein identity-blind policies nonetheless result in different outcomes among demographic groups — as conclusive proof of discrimination. Dallet would lift the blindfold off of Lady Justice so as to promote separate but unequal application of the law. No wonder the police officers union, 44 circuit court judges, 54 sheriffs (active and retired), and 23 district attorneys have endorsed Screnock.
Yes, Screnock has been endorsed by the NRA, which hopes he will interpret the law as written. We say again, state supreme court justices should be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by the legislature. That’s how federal judges are named.
Dallet has an agenda
But there’s a difference between accepting an endorsement from an interest group, as Screnock has done, and actively campaigning on behalf of an interest group, as Dallet does. Her participation in a gun control demonstration earlier this year is proof. Dallet apologists, answer this question: How many other judges are taking to the streets to campaign on legislative issues?
Dallet left the courtroom to joust in the legislative arena with partisan campaign ads attacking Donald Trump. Attorney Rick Esenberg writes at RightWisconsin that Dallet celebrates a Democrat(ic) congressional victory in Pennsylvania, claiming that Wisconsin is “next.” He writes:
Her judicial values include “a strong public education system, clean air and water, the rights of working people to organize” and taking on “vestiges” the “racial and patriarchal system.” … How to achieve them are, for the most part, policy choices for the legislature and governor. To suggest that they ought to inform judicial decision-making is to suggest a significant expansion of the role of the courts.
Blaska’s Bottom Line: Dallet is seeking the wrong office. After she loses Tuesday, she can still file for governor.