Justice Louis Butler, a 55 year-old Milwaukean appointed to the court by Governor Doyle is running for his own term on the Supreme Court. He is being challenged by two other candidates. Those candidates are Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman and Sun Prairie attorney Charlie Schutze.
It is widely expected that this race will be an expensive contest that could be a bit on the rough side. It is a critically important race for all who think of themselves as conservatives, self included. Wisconsinites tend to re-elect judges at all levels in the state. That makes every judicial race an important race. The Supreme Court positions are, however, the very most important since it is here that the final direction of the state is often determined. It is here, as well, that the economic well-being of our state is greatly determined.
The February 19th primary election will reduce the candidates from three to two. Those two will then face off on April 1st and we'll know whom will sit on the highest court for the next TEN years.
Butler is, as one would expect, running on his record over the past four years. In large part, the other two candidates are also running on Butler's record and that has created a rub. Butler supporters think it unfair that the other candidates refer to Butler's vote on various issues since there were other justices voting with him on the same issues just as there were those who voted against him on those issues. The other candidates point out that where there was a one vote margin of victory for one side over the other, it is very appropriate to suggest that Butler's vote was the deciding vote. On a panel of seven justices, 4 to 3 decisions are not at all uncommon. With the liberals' attempted marginalization of Justice Ziegler, 3 to 3 deadlock votes are not at all uncommon.
Beyond all this, when did the vote of a justice become something that us citizens are not entitled to review? How is it that a justice's voting record is not pertinent to the election process?
Butler is quoted as saying, " Our job is not to come in and solve all the problems of the world in one case". Does that strike you as a defensive posture instead of a positive assertion of one's position? It does for me, too.
Gableman is quoted as saying, "My philosophy is to apply the plain language of the law and not to look for ways that offenders may escape the consequences of their actions." Does that give you the sense this is a no-nonsense jurist? It does for me, too.
Schutzke says, "You don't have to be a judge to be a good Supreme Court justice. I think you have to have a good legal mind." That is certainly true, but I'm more comfortable with one who has the jurist' experience. I believe that this is important no matter the political persuasion of the candidates. And remember, the race for the Supreme Court is a political race contrary to candidates' protestations. We just don't see the (R) or the (D) behind their names on the ballot.
The liberals are again trying to marginalize the major contributors to conservatives so that, in the event another conservative wins, they can try the "Ziegler Gambit" on that person, too. Note that Justice Butler finally decided to pay attention to the sources of his contributions, as Zeigler has been pilloried about, at about the time he announced his candidacy. He has not, of course, recused himself; that is apparently only appropriate for the conservative Justice Ziegler. Note, also, that large contributors to the liberal candidates are never attacked by the supposedly non-partisan groups based in Madison. Whatever it takes is exactly what they'll do as has been proved time and again.
Conservatives must recognize once and for all time that we do not play on an even field. The tilt of the field is decidedly to the advantage of the liberal forces, due in large part to these two facts: liberals never give up; liberals use whatever tactic is required. The only way we blunt those forces is to turn out the vote, talk with our friends and neighbors, and make contributions to those whose positions we support.
Ten years is a long time. And, if re-elected, twenty years is an even longer time on the bench.
This race is critically important!
