Electing Justices Good for Republic

Indeed. 

Liberal elitists, who think they are better at picking judges than the voters are, were quick to point to the money injected into the race and negative advertising as justification for “merit selection ” of judges—a fancy name for patronage appointment.

Liberals say contentious and costly judicial election campaigns create disrespect for the judiciary and dupe voters. There is no “silver lining, ” they say. On the contrary, though, there are several.

First, the close election brought valuable attention to referendum issues on the ballot. The voters approved a constitutional amendment depriving Gov. Doyle of the so-called “Frankenstein ” veto he has used to drastically edit budget legislation passed by the Legislature. It was voted down by a margin of 71 percent to 29 percent.

Second, the Gableman-Butler contest was further evidence that Wisconsinites care about judicial rulings. With Butler making a liberal majority, the court garnered nationwide notoriety for decisions expanding business liability in legally unprecedented ways. This clearly played a role in the election.

Third, the money and advertising in the race were not entirely bad. The money trail provided clues for voters on which candidate to support in the nonpartisan race.

Business, law enforcement, and Republicans supported Gableman, while labor, teachers, and Democrats supported Butler.

I distrust people who seek to give the people LESS of a voice in the operations of their government. 

Hat tip to Do the Right Thing.