• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wisconsin Judge race

CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Wow, no thread on this yet?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119308059.html

Seems to me no matter who actually wins - it is a loss for the Unions and their supporters. This judge election was supposed to be a referendum on Walker's bill (the left had signs and everything stating so) and it looks like it's a dead heat. So this election was not an "overwhelming" signal against the bill. I wonder how many millions and operatives the unions pumped into wisconsin against Prosser?

As of this post - Prosser holds a slight edge but we are talking a couple hundred votes out of 1.5 million.
 
I've practiced law in two states-one with judicial elections (WI) and one without. Of the two, it's my reluctant conclusion that judicial elections are a bad concept. Elections very much exaggerate the "local boy" effect, where out of town counsel has to fight uphill from the start. Technically judges were not supposed to participate in fund raising or even know who he contributors are, but every time I contributed to a judge's campaign I was personally welcomed very warmly by that judge the next time I was in his/her courtroom.

It is also my firm belief that poltical issues have absolutely no place in deciding who should be a judge, except perhaps on the US Supreme Court, where nearly every decision is a political issue.

The worst judge-by far-in Milwaukee county when I was there was also the highest vote getter (also by far).

I'm not sure what the best selection process is (here they are nominated by the Governor, approved by the Legislature for a limited renewable term) and this process gives the legislative judicial committee way too much power.

I think the Indiana Supreme Court recently went through a similar turmoil due to it's controversial decision on same sex marriage., where the fundamentalists voted out the offending Justices.

Justice is not something that is determined by what is most popular at the moment.
 
CADsortaGUY said:
Wow, no thread on this yet?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119308059.html

Seems to me no matter who actually wins - it is a loss for the Unions and their supporters. This judge election was supposed to be a referendum on Walker's bill (the left had signs and everything stating so) and it looks like it's a dead heat. So this election was not an "overwhelming" signal against the bill. I wonder how many millions and operatives the unions pumped into wisconsin against Prosser?

As of this post - Prosser holds a slight edge but we are talking a couple hundred votes out of 1.5 million.
Click to expand...

The incumbent Republican has a 30 year history in the state and is very well known. So the fact that a somewhat unknown Democrat is close at this point is pretty impressive.
 
Last edited:
soundforbjt said:
The incumbent Republican has a 30 year history in the state and is very well known. So the fact that a somewhat unknown Democrat is close at this point is pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Wait? What? I thought the will of The People were overwhelmingly against walker and this would be an indication of just how much people disagreed with the law?

Guess what. The People have spoken and you're the minority now. Sleeping giant is wide awake and paying attention now. Gravy train is over.

We The People, of these United States, are telling democrats enough is enough. STOP.
 
soundforbjt said:
The incumbent Republican has a 30 year history in the state and is very well known. So the fact that a somewhat unknown Democrat is close at this point is pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Negative ghost rider. No one knows the judges - atleast not on a mass scale like any other politician. Only when a race is highlighted do people even take time to look it seems. Also the woman running against Prosser is not "unknown" - sheesh.

Being close is a disaster for the Ds and left - they had this in the bag because they kept claiming everyone was against Walker and this would be the referendum. I guess the Unions didn't pump enough money or thugs into the state..... OR the people really aren't against Walker and the bill as much as people want to claim.
 
Thump553 said:
I've practiced law in two states-one with judicial elections (WI) and one without. Of the two, it's my reluctant conclusion that judicial elections are a bad concept. Elections very much exaggerate the "local boy" effect, where out of town counsel has to fight uphill from the start. Technically judges were not supposed to participate in fund raising or even know who he contributors are, but every time I contributed to a judge's campaign I was personally welcomed very warmly by that judge the next time I was in his/her courtroom.

It is also my firm belief that poltical issues have absolutely no place in deciding who should be a judge, except perhaps on the US Supreme Court, where nearly every decision is a political issue.

The worst judge-by far-in Milwaukee county when I was there was also the highest vote getter (also by far).

I'm not sure what the best selection process is (here they are nominated by the Governor, approved by the Legislature for a limited renewable term) and this process gives the legislative judicial committee way too much power.

I think the Indiana Supreme Court recently went through a similar turmoil due to it's controversial decision on same sex marriage., where the fundamentalists voted out the offending Justices.

Justice is not something that is determined by what is most popular at the moment.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Also keep in mind there were some very high profile elections in VERY Democratic counties such as Milwaukee and Dane (Madison, WI). So turnout for D's was expected to be MUCH higher than turnout for R's. The fact Prosser is still in the lead is a bad sign for Democrats. If they can't win when the base is energized against Prosser and the elections stacked against him as far as expected turnout.. they are in trouble.
 
Thump553 said:
I've practiced law in two states-one with judicial elections (WI) and one without. Of the two, it's my reluctant conclusion that judicial elections are a bad concept. Elections very much exaggerate the "local boy" effect, where out of town counsel has to fight uphill from the start. Technically judges were not supposed to participate in fund raising or even know who he contributors are, but every time I contributed to a judge's campaign I was personally welcomed very warmly by that judge the next time I was in his/her courtroom.

It is also my firm belief that poltical issues have absolutely no place in deciding who should be a judge, except perhaps on the US Supreme Court, where nearly every decision is a political issue.

The worst judge-by far-in Milwaukee county when I was there was also the highest vote getter (also by far).

I'm not sure what the best selection process is (here they are nominated by the Governor, approved by the Legislature for a limited renewable term) and this process gives the legislative judicial committee way too much power.

I think the Indiana Supreme Court recently went through a similar turmoil due to it's controversial decision on same sex marriage., where the fundamentalists voted out the offending Justices.

Justice is not something that is determined by what is most popular at the moment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a bit odd and likely not the best way to do it but there doesn't seem to be a perfect way to do it.

It was Iowa BTW that ditched 3 justices this last fall. We have a retain/reject vote - not a head to head competition though.
 
I don't think this could count as a referendum on Walker and his union busting, at least not a clear cut one. I depise Walker and his tactics and his goals, but if I still lived in WI I probably would have voted for Posser-he is a quality justice (I know nothing about his opponent).

If I remember WI judicial election procedure properly, no party affiliation is shown on the ballot for the candidates. Is this still correct?
 
Thump553 said:
I don't think this could count as a referendum on Walker and his union busting, at least not a clear cut one. I depise Walker and his tactics and his goals, but if I still lived in WI I probably would have voted for Posser-he is a quality justice (I know nothing about his opponent).

If I remember WI judicial election procedure properly, no party affiliation is shown on the ballot for the candidates. Is this still correct?
Click to expand...

One would have to think there were a good amount of ads linking the republican to walker and his law. Otherwise why would democrats keep calling this a referendum?

Face it, the tax paying Americans started voting instead of using the excuse "oh, I have to work". NO MORE.
 
Thump553 said:
I don't think this could count as a referendum on Walker and his union busting, at least not a clear cut one. I depise Walker and his tactics and his goals, but if I still lived in WI I probably would have voted for Posser-he is a quality justice (I know nothing about his opponent).

If I remember WI judicial election procedure properly, no party affiliation is shown on the ballot for the candidates. Is this still correct?
Click to expand...

That's correct. It's technically a non-partisan race, though the parties make it perfectly clear who they support.

That being said, it's extremely difficult to unseat a sitting judge in races like these. They either have to do something incredibly stupid that gets their name known to the public in a negative way (I mean, what % of people in any state could name any of their state supreme court justices? 10%? That's probably high), or there has to be a strong will to buck the system for one reason or another, and that's what's going on in Wisconsin right now.
 
Slick5150 said:
That's correct. It's technically a non-partisan race, though the parties make it perfectly clear who they support.

That being said, it's extremely difficult to unseat a sitting judge in races like these. They either have to do something incredibly stupid that gets their name known to the public in a negative way (I mean, what % of people in any state could name any of their state supreme court justices? 10%? That's probably high), or there has to be a strong will to buck the system for one reason or another, and that's what's going on in Wisconsin right now.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? You honestly believe this? So a loss is a win in your mind, eh? You're in the minority, succumb to the will of The People.

If any system bucking is going on it's bucking democrats and their state destroying agenda.
 
waffleironhead said:
Regardless of who wins the election Walker isnt going to take any of it into account. Thats just how he operates.
Click to expand...

Why the hell would a governor use the outcome of a judicial election to decide policy? 😕

I also agree that judges should be appointed and not elected.
 
My point is that GOP complaining about biased judiciary or secretary of state rings a bit hollow after Bush v Gore, etc.
 
spidey07 said:
We The People, of these United States, are telling democrats enough is enough. STOP.
Click to expand...

2lseg6o.jpg

Go shove it you basement freak. And your imaginary "we the people" too.
 
Thump553 said:
Justice is not something that is determined by what is most popular at the moment.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be anyway, but Plessy, Dred Scot or Bowers v Hardwick don't smell like justice now though at the time maybe they did to most, or at least very many.
 
senseamp said:
39% less than corporatists pumped into Wisconsin to support him.
Plus if he loses, it's going to be a huge win for labor, since this law is going up through the courts.
Click to expand...

Uh, there is no scenario where "labor" wins this. They were supposed to destroy prosser and the uncertified results have him losing by 204 votes out of 1.5 million. There for sure will be a recall as the margin is near nil. However, no matter the outcome of this race, labor has to make it's case and will likely lose even in she wins and doesn't recuse herself. It will be interesting though - it'll tell us quite a bit about how good of a judge she is based on her position/ruling.

BTW, any bets on the senate just passing the original one now that the recall will take weeks/months?
 
CADsortaGUY said:
Uh, there is no scenario where "labor" wins this. They were supposed to destroy prosser and the uncertified results have him losing by 204 votes out of 1.5 million. There for sure will be a recall as the margin is near nil. However, no matter the outcome of this race, labor has to make it's case and will likely lose even in she wins and doesn't recuse herself. It will be interesting though - it'll tell us quite a bit about how good of a judge she is based on her position/ruling.

BTW, any bets on the senate just passing the original one now that the recall will take weeks/months?
Click to expand...

Clinging on to not losing by as much as they feared is how losers talk when they lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top