The Editorial Board decided to back the candidate with these members of Congress in her corner:
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Senator Russ Feingold
Congressman Steve Kagen
Congressman Ron Kind
Senator Herb Kohl
Congresswoman Gwen Moore
Congressman Dave Obey
That candidate is Linda Clifford.
Do these supporters give you an idea of the sort of judge Linda Clifford would be?
I hope so. There's not a lot else to go on.
She has never been a judge, so she has no record whatsoever serving in the judicial branch. Zero. No experience. None.
The Board decided to back away from Annette Ziegler, the candidate with endorsements from sheriffs, district attorneys, and circuit court judges across the state. Former Governor Tommy Thompson, elected to an unprecedented four terms, also endorsed her.
Ziegler has years of experience as a judge.
If she had served as a judge for only one week or one day or one hour, Ziegler would have infinitely more experience as a judge than Clifford -- because Clifford has NEVER been a judge.
Nonetheless, in all its wisdom, the Editorial Board considers Clifford to be the clear choice for Supreme Court.
In the editorial, reasons, albeit empty ones, to not vote for Ziegler outnumber reasons to vote for Clifford.
The Board tackles Clifford's negatives by offering lame excuses for them.
Some have raised reservations about Clifford's judicial philosophy. They have characterized the current court as overreaching, citing as one example its attempt to make right the injuries suffered by a Milwaukee teenager poisoned by lead paint. The court's ruling allowed the boy to sue even though it was impossible to know which companies made the paint that poisoned him.
This was indeed overreaching. But all that critics have to suggest Clifford would be a party to such rulings is the label of "liberal" they attempt to tar her with.
Poor Clifford. She's being called (GASP!) liberal.
A little deeper into the editorial, it becomes clear that critics have much more than that label to suggest that Clifford would be an "overreacher."
The Board spells it out, negating its previous statement!
Clifford has said she has a strong respect for precedent and that she would follow the law. She has called her approach to judging pragmatic. She has said that the constitution must be allowed to breathe. We agree. And when this "breathing" occurs, this is not necessarily overreaching or so-called judicial activism.
The law must evolve to meet changing needs.
"So-called judicial activism"?
Writing law rather than interpreting it IS judicial activism.
Then, the board argues that Ziegler's judicial philosophy is BS.
Ziegler has indicated she is a judicial conservative. But experience teaches that "judicial restraint" is often a very thin veil. The truth is that conservative judges are just as apt to pursue their own agendas as liberals.
What experience teaches that?
The truth is conservative judges, constructionists, do not purse political agendas. They interpret the law.
Libs want activist judges to legislate from the bench and deliver laws that would never be passed by a legislative body. It's their avenue to enact their extremist lib agenda. The courts are the libs' last best hope.
That's the truth. Apparently, the Board can't handle the truth.
Once again, the JS Editorial Board is just making crap up.
The fact is there is a very clear choice for Wisconsin Supreme Court.
It's Annette Ziegler.
No comments:
Post a Comment