Don’t like election results? Change the Rules.
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called, “Don’t like election results? Change the Rules.” I take a look at some of the “reforms” being proposed for supreme court elections in Wisconsin.
Well I know you didn’t write the headline but the headline is not correct. I read your column and you don’t characterize any of this as “changing the rules”, it is but it isn’t.
The dream scenario is the left works its tail off and succeed in amending the state constitution to have the governor appoint justices and then before a Democrat can appoint a justice we get a Republican governor who appoints conservatives. I would laugh so hard!
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on April 08, 2008 at 2233 hrs
It’s not about finding liberals or conservatives. The dream scenario just about finding intelligent, thoughtful, respected lawyers who are willing to serve the public. If they don’t all think the same way, that’s fine. In fact, that’s great. Appellate courts benefit from panels with diverse perspectives.
Our three most competent justices are Abrahamson, Prosser, and Roggensack - a professor, a legislator, and an appellate court judge. Neither Abrahamson nor Prosser had any judicial experience prior to their service on the court (not withstanding Prosser’s quasi-judicial role during his time on the Tax Appeals Commission).
Sadly, the last two court races aren’t going to encourage those types of people to bother running for office, so Wisconsin will likely continue to get Circuit Court clowns as its options. In the last two races, the most qualified candidate by far was Linda Clifford, and look what it got her.
And how about this for a de facto minimum standard? All judicial candidates should have a degree from UW Law or something better than that. That’s like 35 law schools right there. Should be plenty of options. But enough with folks from third tier law schools like Hamline (Gableman) or schools that can barely crack the top 100, like Marquette (Ziegler).
At this rate, maybe our next justice will have a law degree from the University of Phoenix.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 08, 2008 at 2343 hrs
Feeling a little bitter, recess? Just because person comes from a “third tier” school doesn’t mean they are less knowledgable about the law. Let me clue you, just because you graduate from U.W. Madison, doesn’t mean you are smart. I graduated from U.W. Madison in special education, but I learned much more from Silver Lake College in Manitowoc in 2 years, a much smaller and less prestigous school, than I did at U.W. Madison, where I studied for 5 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0015 hrs
Meh, third-tier law school + ADA out in the sticks + DA out in the sticks + Circuit Court judge out in the sticks usually = not among the great legal minds of our time.
Hamline is a third-tier school that accepts nearly half its applicants. Sure, it’s possible that Gableman had a 3.8 GPA and a 172 on the LSAT and turned down a bunch of more prestigious schools to go there. But it’s unlikely. Most law school candidates try to get into the best school they can get into.
That Wisconsin consistently aspires to mediocrity in electing judges and legislators isn’t my problem. It does, however, create problems for Wisconsin in that most of its politicians lack the knowledge and skills to solve complex matters of public policy. I mean, I believe Huebsch is a college dropout and Decker was a bricklayer who went to tech school. Any wonder that the guy in the Executive Residence with the degree from Harvard Law runs circles around them?
And like I’ve said on my own blog, this has nothing to do with my own preference. I don’t think Butler is any more qualified to serve than Gableman. My concern is that most qualified candidates aren’t going to put up with all the BS that seems to surround judicial races these days. They’ll just stay in private practice or keep teaching.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 09, 2008 at 0138 hrs
I don’t accept the notion that the fact that someone spent their career “out in the sticks” somehow makes them less qualified. The Court serves all of Wisconsin and, last time I checked anyway, there was a lot more to Wisconsin than Milwaukee and Madison.
I also disagree with your thought that it’s not about a liberal or conservative judicial philosophy. Two lawyers can have identical resumes but vastly different opinions on the role of a court.
Posted by Owen on April 09, 2008 at 0616 hrs
Let’s not forget that it was appointed judges that gave us abortion.
It’s pathetic that anyone argues that people should lose the right to vote because Butler lost. If anyone in elected office goes along with this nonsense, they should be voted out immediatedly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0635 hrs
Before we start annointing UW Law as the bastion of great legal minds, people should know that historically UW law has significantly compromised it’s academic admissions standards over the years to populate the school with minorities, women and what are considered non-traditional students (i.e. people over 30)
It is one of the reasons the last 20-25 years their “ranking” has fallen.
Now, do I disagree with UW’s philosophy on admissions (or at least how it has been in the past?) I guess I don’t because they’ve believed that diversity trumps sheer cognitive brainpower and that is their right.
But it does speak to the problem of the liberal mindset in equating competency with “academic success” Going to the famous Buckley quote, many would rather be governed by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.
And I can say all this because I am indeed a graduate of UW Law…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0732 hrs
Your most vacuous post in recent memory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0800 hrs
As the judge said: “the legislature wrote the law, now I’ll tell them what they meant”.
Under some of these silly theories that anyone from the “sticks” is unqualified to be on the big courts is ridiculous.
A few years back Fortune did a study and it showed that a huge number of top officers in the biggest corporations came from the “sticks”. Years before it showed that they came from one room schoolhouses.
Some of the smartest people that i ever worked with never graduated college. Only those dummies with permanent “Madison think” shout that claptrap.
It would be very intereting to do a study on our Justices over the lst century and see who came from Harvard, UW and who graduated from Marquette. John Shabaz, ranked one of the finest federal judes we have ever had in this state came from Marquette. He reset standards in trying cases, how fast and how efficiently courts should be run and served us well for 20 years.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0818 hrs
The dream scenario just about finding intelligent, thoughtful, respected lawyers
What recess supervisor meant to say was “the dream scenario about finding intelligent,thoughtful, respected lawyers, is sadly just a dream, because quite frankly the thoughtfulness, and intelligence is sucked right out of them the moment they enter law school!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on April 09, 2008 at 0851 hrs
I shore do wesh i were smert enuff to go ta that law teachin place up thare at that skool for such smert people in that Madisun. I gess Ill have to go 2 Hamlin or Mark-ett…
If only I wuz as smert as that RS geeniuss i kould stop eatin possims i kil with that there gunn.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 0915 hrs
When I first saw the headline I thought the column was going to be about voter id.
No mention of a wide spread voter fraud problem in the latest elections lately either?
How curious?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1048 hrs
Guun has two u’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1322 hrs
From #6:
“That Wisconsin consistently aspires to mediocrity in electing judges and legislators isn’t my problem. It does, however, create problems for Wisconsin in that most of its politicians lack the knowledge and skills to solve complex matters of public policy. I mean, I believe Huebsch is a college dropout and Decker was a bricklayer who went to tech school.”
What does the writer propose to do about this supposed “problem”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1621 hrs
If you’re addressing me, George, I don’t know that there is an easy solution. I’ve written about this on my own blog, so I’ll be brief here.
I think you improve the quality of candidates by increasing pay or decreasing pay and workload. Right now we basically pay legislators $48K a year for a job whose time commitments in Madison are too great for most people with normal jobs to be able to serve. We also pay too little, given the commitment, to interest most people with successful careers - so we get the usual crop of struggling small business owners, retired people who are bored, and people looking for cheap benefits for their family.
For a Supreme Court justice, the pay is embarrassing compared to what a highly qualified attorney can make in private practice.
Voters, by and large, have no idea what an appellate court does. That’s why I’d have no problem axing them out of the process. As far as politicians go, voters just need to get back into the mindset of voting for the smartest, most qualified candidate instead of looking for the candidate who they’d want to have a beer with.
But as it stands, Wisconsin gets the legislature it deserves. I’m not even convinced that if voters had better options, they’d be smart enough to choose them. The legislature will change when voters change. That could happen but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 09, 2008 at 1900 hrs
Recess,
You say, “I’m not even convinced that if voters had better options, they’d be smart enough to choose them.” This sort of ends the dialogue.
One ? intrigues me. To give voters better options, you would raise their pay or cut it and cut their workload. What would you cut from their “workload”? How?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 1953 hrs
I would really make them a part-time legislature. Pay them five or ten grand a year, don’t give them benefits, and, like many states, only have them in session for one 4-6 week period each year. Whatever they don’t get done doesn’t get done. That way the time commitment is such that more people are able to serve and quality candidates with good jobs won’t be turned off by the job being a huge time suck.
The reason you have to give them a full-time salary right now is because the legislative calendar is such that they’re in (or can be hauled in) at virtually any time between January of the odd-numbered year and April of the even-numbered year. And if you’re going to go that route, why not pay them enough that you get better candidates?
I’m just of the opinion right now that our present situation is the worst of all possible worlds.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 09, 2008 at 2031 hrs
I agree, RS. Pay them $5k a year for their trouble and have a true part-time legislature. Heck, I might even run if that were the case.
Posted by Owen on April 09, 2008 at 2050 hrs
That is interesting, John Shabaz and I wrote a bill like that in 1969. Not one person in the GOP caucus would back it.
Adopt the western legislative program, maximum of 60 days in session every two years. Low salary, the law would allow anyone to run and they could not be fired.
Only 60 days of per diem.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 2110 hrs
Pray tell, George, what is the status of the pending complaint at the GAB concerning the admittedly illegal conduct in Wisconsin by “All Children Matter” during the 2006 campaign?
Surely you are aware that this sleazy group is now facing a multi-million dollar penalty for similar conduct in Ohio.
What say you about your good friends?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2008 at 2226 hrs
The options suggested by RS won’t happen. The assessment of voters and the comments about the intellectual capacity of Heubsch and Decker are elitist and condescending. Kinda like Sen. Taylor’s claim that college degrees made her the better candidate for County Executive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0139 hrs
Sounds to me like Recess thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and if we just let him decide everything we’ll all be better off.
Please - how can you have a democracy without voting. Butler lost the previous election he was in and he lost this one too. The only reason he was on the bench was that he was appointed.
So the guy got appointed once and twice he was voted down. It is pretty obvious that the voters just don’t like the way he operates.
Abrahamson will most likely be voted out as well next year - people don’t like judges who legislate from the bench. I bet it will be an even nastier race than this one was.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0642 hrs
I think the Abrahamson race will be interesting but an uphill fight. Shirley is beloved by the liberals in Madison. They’ll figure out how to allow dogs and cats to vote to keep her in.
If conservatives want a shot at this, they need to nominate a well known person this summer and then start listing off Shirley’s decisions over the last 30-years. Then do some subliminal McCain style bashing at her age and whether she’s cut out for a 10-year term.
And it still probably won’t work. She’s an institution where Butler was not…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0810 hrs
“Dont like the results, change the rules:” - Does that apply to Voter-ID?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0859 hrs
“Dont like the results, change the rules:” - Does that apply to Voter-ID?
Last I checked, there were indeed rules against voter fraud. Unfortunately, “you people” don’t want them properly enforced.
Posted by Fuzz on April 10, 2008 at 0920 hrs
I am smarter than most people, but I don’t think I’m qualified to select judges. Any race for an appellate court where the ads frequently discuss whether someone is “tough on crime” tells me that both campaigns already knew voters don’t understand what an appellate court does. Let me know the last time the Supreme Court issued a sentence in a criminal trial. People think they’re voting for who would be a better Judge Judy.
Our founding fathers were elitist. Shall we take them off the money now? There’s nothing wrong with believing that the smartest, most talented people should run things. You call that elitist. I call that a meritocracy. Either way, it sure as hell beats populism, where average people elect representatives of average intelligence to solve complex problems. We can all see where that’s gotten us lately.
Watching the Legislature in action is like watching a three-year-old with a Rubik’s cube. Their way of “solving” problems usually involves peeling all the stickers off the cube, rearranging them so as to create the appearance that they actually solved it, and then bringing it back to the voters with the hopes that enough of them are stupid to believe it.
And sadly, that’s usually the case.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 10, 2008 at 0933 hrs
The last thing that our founders were was an elitist group. They thoroughly rejected ideas, like Thomas Jefferson’s, to only let landowners vote. They had just come from elitist societies, mostly monarchies that were a mess. That is why they adopted a government that had to move slowly and could not overwhelm the votes of the people.
Why do you think that they formed a congress that was elected every two years? If they peed on the people too much they could replace them quickly. Why did they form a senate, similair to the House of Lords, that is virtually incabable of accomplishing anyhting. That is the way they wanted it.
It was often said that the cumulative intelligence of the electorate superceded the intelligence of the few. It has been that way for several hundred years and I firmly believe that it will contue as such.
The poor Ed Garvey’s of the world that are disturbed by one little tough election need to go back in history and see what tough elections are really about. The people always sort it out. It is the elitists, who somethimes choose the candidates, that screw it up.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2008 at 0949 hrs
Sure Bob, whatever. George Washington ran with the rich folk and one of his best friends and closest allies was Alexander Hamilton, who explicitly endorsed the concept of an intellectual aristocracy ruling the nation. John Adams was no better. Most states restricted voting rights to white men, excluding blacks and women from political representation.
And you’re telling me they weren’t elitist? Just because some of our Founding Fathers were skeptical of the powers of a central government doesn’t mean they envisioned a bunch of populist, pandering schmucks running it. It’s pretty clear in their writings who they saw running the show, and it wasn’t the bricklayers and the college dropouts of the world.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 11, 2008 at 0004 hrs
RS you are extremly ignorant of history. Washington ws not an elitist even though Hamilton probably was. The rest of them were pretty common folk, revolutionaries to be exact while the elitists were the “loyalists”.
Any reading of history from that era, the works of Thomas Paine, the Federalist papers etc. were very clear in that area.
While you were right about who could vote, remember that voting at all was revolutionary at that time.
What they didn’t imagine was a bunch of pro-govnerment schmucks, both GOP and Dem, would emerge to run the government.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 11, 2008 at 0725 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 07:27 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).