Waukesha County Clerk

[wyzgy]

Who?  You're a little too creative with nicknames and you lost me

sorry, gov. jim doyle and potus-barrack hussein obama

[GGGG]

sloppykloppy was probably the favorite because of all the national goonion $$ support and looked at as a referendum against scott walker, but she was passed over for judgeship appointments by both diamond jimmy and obutthead.  some were saying brookfield held out purposely waiting for an 11th hour surprise from the kloppensheim team.  this way they could see their 2500 and raise them 7500  

wtf???  I think i need an interpreter of some sort to figure this one out...

[wildbillsb]

sloppykloppy was probably the favorite because of all the national goonion $$ support and looked at as a referendum against scott walker, but she was passed over for judgeship appointments by both diamond jimmy and obutthead.  some were saying brookfield held out purposely waiting for an 11th hour surprise from the kloppensheim team.  this way they could see their 2500 and raise them 7500  

Whaaaat?  Are we to infer from your diatribe that no out-of-state money helped to fill the coffers of the Prosser camp?  Perhaps you'll want to look into those numbe alsor, mon frere.

[wyzgy]

Whaaaat?  Are we to infer from your diatribe that no out-of-state money helped to fill the coffers of the Prosser camp?  Perhaps you'll want to look into those numbe alsor, mon frere.

look into it yourself.  did i say anything inaccurate?  we had a lawyer running for judge who was taking a victory lap before the checkered flag had been waved.  nice.  i would prefer my judges hear all the facts of the case before coming to a conclusion.  that's usually how it works 

[wyzgy]

wtf???  I think i need an interpreter of some sort to figure this one out...

it's not that hard wayne.  try the one eye method

[muhoosier260]

I hate that we vote for supreme court justices anyway. the whole thing is philosophically flawed.

you'd rather have them appointed by dummy?

[ATWizJr]

you'd rather have them appointed by dummy?

No, not a federal judgeship.  A state judgeship.

[shiloh26]

you'd rather have them appointed by dummy?

Yes, I'd rather have them appointed and affirmed, regardless of who the executive is.  Judges should not be subject to the political process... doesn't it bother you that this election felt like a referendum on the budget bill?  Judges shouldn't feel like they have political obligations to decide cases a certain before they reach the court.  That's how legislatures and executives work, but that is entirely different from the impartial judgement that a judge is supposed to render. 

[ringout]

Yes, I'd rather have them appointed and affirmed, regardless of who the executive is.  Judges should not be subject to the political process... doesn't it bother you that this election felt like a referendum on the budget bill?  Judges shouldn't feel like they have political obligations to decide cases a certain before they reach the court.  That's how legislatures and executives work, but that is entirely different from the impartial judgement that a judge is supposed to render. 

Judge appointments became politicized when the dems "Borked" a perfectly qualified candidate for Supreme Court.  That genie is out of the bottle.

[MUBurrow]

the appointment and confirmation problem certainly is not as apolitical as we would like. but its as close as we can get, and it keeps the power to appoint and confirm in politicians who must be to some degree transparent, and we rely on the political process to try to check their honesty and straightforwardness about whether they appoint/confirm based on political leanings or what the believe are issues that would keep a prospective justice from doing their job well.

The most clear example of the flawed process to me, is that one of a judge's primary responsibilities is to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority' (overused phrase, but illustrative) as we've seen through Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, etc.  So if a judge's job is to determine legality and may be forced by legal considerations to strike down a law backed by the public majority, what fracking sense does it make to have that same majority elect (or remove by election) said judge?  Its an overly repetitive electoral exercise that weakens the reach and scope that separation of powers has determined vitally necessary to vest in the judiciary (to use a federal comparison).  In its place, it just disproportionately favors the political tenor of the time, when the legislatures are the appropriate place for that tenor to affect legislation and governance.

[ringout]

the appointment and confirmation problem certainly is not as apolitical as we would like. but its as close as we can get, and it keeps the power to appoint and confirm in politicians who must be to some degree transparent, and we rely on the political process to try to check their honesty and straightforwardness about whether they appoint/confirm based on political leanings or what the believe are issues that would keep a prospective justice from doing their job well.

The most clear example of the flawed process to me, is that one of a judge's primary responsibilities is to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority' (overused phrase, but illustrative) as we've seen through Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, etc.  So if a judge's job is to determine legality and may be forced by legal considerations to strike down a law backed by the public majority, what fracking sense does it make to have that same majority elect (or remove by election) said judge?  Its an overly repetitive electoral exercise that weakens the reach and scope that separation of powers has determined vitally necessary to vest in the judiciary (to use a federal comparison).  In its place, it just disproportionately favors the political tenor of the time, when the legislatures are the appropriate place for that tenor to affect legislation and governance.

Either way, it has become overly political.  At this point, I have a little (not too much) more faith in the electorate.  Less opportunity to game the system, trade votes, or whatever the political whores are want to do. 

[shiloh26]

Either way, it has become overly political.  At this point, I have a little (not too much) more faith in the electorate.  Less opportunity to game the system, trade votes, or whatever the political whores are want to do.  

Its certainly a hard argument to refute.  In the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has essentially followed public opinion on just about every high profile case that came down the pipes (hey hey, Sandra Day), with maybe the exception of the flag burning case, and Citizens United most recently. Even Roe v. Wade, when it came down a little earlier was pretty much a 50/50 in terms of public attitude.  And you're right, post-Bork, appointment hearings have turned into a circus.  See Douglas Ginsberg, Clarence Thomas, hell even Kagan's stuff got a little chippy, and she's probably one of the more moderate judges nominated in a while.  But hey, Bork probably should have been smarter than to go in front of Congress and tell them that the Equal Protection Act was a Constitutional mistake.  (Even if he's convinced he's right by his method of 'divining the intent of the Framers,' you're really going to say that? In 1987? In front of an appointment commission?)

Before that, though, appointment was not so overtly political. Outside of Carter, who appointed no one, the Republicans held the presidency, and therefore all Supreme Court appointments, from Nixon through H.W.  And the whole time the Court still headed left until Rehnquist became C.J.  I'd be surprised to hear Ford say that Stevens turned out to be the judge he wanted.  Same goes for Powell and Blackmun under Nixon, Souter under H.W. and even Kennedy half the time.  

Anyway, you're right its a flawed process, but its still better than electing.  It should never feel like a judge is running just to overturn/uphold some particular piece of legislation or case.  Thats just so blatantly against what a judge is supposed to do, and it makes me highly uncomfortable to overtly politicize the judicial process.  

[Coleman]

sloppykloppy was probably the favorite because of all the national goonion $$ support and looked at as a referendum against scott walker, but she was passed over for judgeship appointments by both diamond jimmy and obutthead.  some were saying brookfield held out purposely waiting for an 11th hour surprise from the kloppensheim team.  this way they could see their 2500 and raise them 7500  

Actually Prosser had a 30 (THIRTY) point lead over Kloppenberg 3 months ago before the budget repair bill was introduced. He was the clear favorite. He ended up winning, but by the slimmest of margins.