Nichols-In the Courts of Fitzwalkerstan: Apr 5 Judicial Election Could Renew Checks & Balances in WI

[highplainsdem]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159656/courts-fitzwalkerstan-april-5-judicial-election-could-renew-checks-balances-wisconsin

In the Courts of Fitzwalkerstan: April 5 Judicial Election Could Renew Checks & Balances in Wisconsin
John Nichols
April 2, 2011


-snip-

In announcing his candidacy for a new term, the justice identified himself as a conservative judicial activist who intended to use his position on the court to advance Walker's agenda. In the first announcement from his re-election effort, the message was clear: “Our campaign efforts will include building an organization that will return Justice Prosser to the bench, protecting the conservative judicial majority and acting as a common sense complement to both the new administration and Legislature.”

Months later, when that line began to stir controversy, Prosser attempted to step back from the statement. But then his campaign said that the April court election is about locking in a “conservative majority” on the court “and nothing more.”

-snip-

For Wisconsinites who prefer the ancient model of governing that put all power in a monarch, Prosser is the right choice. He is running as an explicit supporter of the governor. That is his right. But it is also the right of the voters to set a higher standard.

-snip-

Now they have an opportunity to defend that standard once more. The April 5 Supreme Court vote provides a stark choice between a partisan judicial activist who would make the court an extension of the governor’s office and a respected legal scholar, litigator and prosecutor who would restore the court’s independence.

-snip-

[iwishiwas]

1. Pass it on via your emails to all you know--Repugs included.

[Scuba]

3. Posting to JSOnline.com

[iwishiwas]

5. :-)

[iemitsu]

2. seems the choice for wisconsin voters is clear.

i will be celebrating prosser's defeat from the west coast tuesday night or wednesday.

[senseandsensibility]

4. I was really disappointed with Rachel last night.

I am a Rachel fan. But last night she interviewed Micheal Steele, of all people, and they discussed this race. She let him get away with the most ridiculous statements. He whined that the judiciary is becoming too politicized, and she did not point out that it is the repug in this race who is HYPER politicized; he is in NO way a victim. She did not bring up his extremely political statements or the fact that he called his opponent a b&##@. In the same interview he claimed repeatedly that the attempt to take away collective bargaining was a result of the budget shortfall, and she did not point out that the money issues were agreed to by the unions long before the repugs rammed the legislation through. It was a total puff piece, and I was disappointed.