OPINION & EDITORIAL
Ziegler deserves your vote
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Johnson all wrong on PETA (October 8, 2008)
- A call to arms (October 1, 2008)
- ASM sunk in political science sandbox (September 26, 2008)
- EC protects rape victims (September 23, 2008)
- Catch McCain fever (September 23, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Ziegler absurdly corrupt; vote Clifford (March 21, 2007)
- Clifford for Supreme Court (March 22, 2007)
- Readers build soap box (March 30, 2007)
- Just reprimand (January 21, 2008)
- With April showers come voting powers (April 1, 2008)
Share This:
by Letters to the Editor
Monday, March 26, 2007
I was disappointed to see such a narrow-minded guest column in Wednesday's Badger Herald (Oliver Kiefer, Ziegler absurdly corrupt; vote Clifford). Unfortunately, the author put his own political interests above the needs of every single student on our campus. If there is one thing students can't afford, it is another judge willing to write his or her own opinions into the law.
Students must be able to rely on a steady interpretation of the law. Decisions made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as we attend classes at UW-Madison will affect us for the rest of our lives. When asked what she would rely on to form her judicial opinions, Annette Ziegler answered, "the Wisconsin Statutes." (Isthmus, 3/8/2007) What else should be used? Is there anything else that should be relevant to her consideration of the law? No, but it is a very important question, as her opponent cited Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.
This highlights a stark difference between the two candidates for the Supreme Court. Judge Ziegler has stated her decisions made on the bench will not be at "the whim of the day or my political or ideological preference. That gets checked at the door." (Sheboygan Press, 3/2/07) In the same article, Linda Clifford is quoted as saying her decisions will "reflect what society needs in any given context." One candidate will analyze current state law and precedent, and use those things, and only those things, to formulate her judicial opinions. That is what Annette Ziegler has done for a decade, and that is what we can surely rely on her to do as a Supreme Court Justice. We have another candidate who will allow other things, things we cannot control, to influence her opinion. From campaign donors to interest groups, we have no idea what Linda Clifford will allow to manipulate her decisions.
The fact is, with Annette Ziegler's unprecedented commitment to the law guiding her judicial work, nothing else matters. When a judge refuses to allow anything but the law to make any kind of impact, it doesn't matter if someone attempts to stain her record with dirty political attacks. She has made and kept a commitment to the law, excluding everything else.
That too is something I suppose we shouldn't expect Clifford to understand. As Kiefer speaks so highly of her, there's one small detail he seems to have excluded: Clifford has never served as a judge. Ever. Not a single bench has ever been graced by the woman who would like a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. So while she impugns Annette Ziegler's impeccable record, she doesn't even have a record to speak of. She has no experience, no track record, no practice sitting on the bench. I find that rather disturbing—I would prefer that the men and women whose words become the law of the land have had the experience of make binding decisions based on facts of a case presented to them.
Finally, there is Ziegler's incredible network of support across the state. 132 circuit court judges have endorsed her in this race. 132 of her peers on the bench have decided, regardless of label, that she is clearly the qualified candidate. Additionally, law enforcement organizations, sheriffs and district attorneys - democrats and republicans alike — form an incredible array of people that have come together to support Judge Annette Ziegler. Beyond her vast judicial experience, she's done pro bono work in Milwaukee, served as an Assistant United States Attorney, and volunteered with the Boys and Girls Club.
Ziegler's list of experience and support could go on for pages. However, Annette Ziegler remains the sole qualified candidate because of her commitment to the law, and her incredible track record on the bench. Students should rally around the one judge they can trust, the one judge who will avoid legislating from the bench, the one judge who will decide cases in accordance with the law. That judge, Annette Ziegler, deserves your vote on April 3rd.
Sol Grosskopf (grosskopf@wisc.edu) is a UW sophomore.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 12:33am):
Ziegler's conduct with regard to undisclosed conflicts of interest while serving as a judge ought to bring serious doubt to her ability to utilize "current state law and precedent...and only those things, to formulate her judicial opinions." Ignoring that and advocating her election to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the name of her "impeccable record" is woefully ignorant, and remains so regardless of your separate opinion of Linda Clifford.
You present a reasonable body of contrast between the two candidates, and manage to read an awful lot into various quotes, but the ongoing debate over the records of the two candidates has not been furthered by your writing. Sol, I would ask that you at least pretend to offer a reasonable evaluation of our choices on April 3, and not put your "own political interests above the needs of every single student on our campus."
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 7:01am):
pot...ketttle...black by chastizing previous writer's "political interests". You are just as, if not more so, guilty of such
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:17am):
Ziegler doesn't deserve your vote if you are pro-democracy, pro-open government, pro-sunshine laws. If you're part of the Club for Growth or WMC sect, trying to revive 20th century corporate feudalism, then vote for Ziegler.
Her lack of ethics are severely disturbing.
Remember, while this is a non-partisan race, Annette Ziegler is definitely part of the Republican ideological titanic.
Adam James
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:19am):
You seriously answered none of the accusations made against Judge Ziegler in Kiefer's column. I guess we can only assume then that you support a judge who has a complete disregard for our conflict of interest statutes, the very ones she claims she will rule based on.
If politics are truly this currupt, I would much rather have a person who hasn't been part of the system before. Perhaps Linda Clifford can bring some fresh air and new thinking to the Court.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:27am):
Nice work, Sol!
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:39am):
Being a trial judge has nothign to do with the legal scholarship required of supreme court justices. They're two different fields, so previous judicial experience is moot.
Stop being another Ziegler apologist. Her record is not pristine; she is one of the most corrupt and careless judges ever to serve on a Wisconsin bench.
She doesn't deserve our vote; she deserves our scorn.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:45am):
Sol Grosskopf is also a College Republican. Nothing like full disclosure, eh?
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 10:16am):
The Ziegler "scandal" is as much a media construct as it is actual fact. The truth of the matter is that while she did rule on cases where there may appear to be a conflict, no one has accused Ziegler of faulty decisions. If Ziegler ruled in favor of each and every one of her supposed conflicts of interest, this is a real scandal. That, however, is not the case.
But what about Clifford? The newspaper leading the anti-Ziegler charge, the Wisconsin State Journal, has Clifford on their payroll. That isn't a conflict of interest? Or what about two consultants hired by the Clifford campaign to dig up dirt on Ziegler who lied to Washington County Sherriff's Deputies. Clifford dismisses the incident, but sorry, lying to the police if you have nothing to hide is not something to be condoned.
Prove that Ziegler's opinions and decisions are biased and unethical. They're not. Clifford on the other hand thinks that the constitution should "breathe" and shift with the needs of people at the time.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 10:20am):
i'm sure that Justices Abrahamson and Reinquist would love to hear your argument that you need judicial experience before rising to the Supreme Court level...as they were not judges before joining the Court.
Face it- that argument bears no weight in intelligent discourse about this race. Over half of the former Justices had no previous judicial experience because they were able to bring other vital perspectives to the Court. This letter makes no sense- it's simply extremist propaganda not looking out for the best interests of anyone in Wisconsin.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 10:22am):
"If you're part of the Club for Growth or WMC sect, trying to revive 20th century corporate feudalism, then vote for Ziegler."
This deserves to be a readers' comment of the week. Couldn't have said it better myself!
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 11:34am):
Dave Cieslewicz, Linda Clifford, Lauren Woods, Marj Passman, Beth Moss, Johnny Winston. Just filled out my absentee ballot! Boy did it feel good. Fill those ballots out folks!
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
Thanks for the ballot reminder, lets see Ray Allen, Annette Ziegler... looks like my vote will cancel out yours, hippy.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 1:09pm):
It appears the Badger Herald hates my comments as much as I hate this editorial.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 1:16pm):
"The truth of the matter is that while she did rule on cases where there may appear to be a conflict, no one has accused Ziegler of faulty decisions. If Ziegler ruled in favor of each and every one of her supposed conflicts of interest, this is a real scandal. That, however, is not the case."
97% is good enough for you?
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 1:36pm):
@12:46,
Fairly gutless ballot there. How typically boring of you.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 2:05pm):
Fill it out like this:
Adam Lang, Eli Judge, Linda Clifford, Maya Cole, Beth Moss, Johnny Winston.
When you're getting fired at from both sides, you know you're right!
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 2:27pm):
1:16 is exactly right...she ruled in favor of them 97% of the time.
Sol refuses to acknowledge Ziegler's transgressions and, just like her campaign, shifts the focus.
As soon as Ziegler comes out and answers the question, "Why did you not disclose your conflicts of interest?" I will not take her seriously. Saying you decided without bias isn't enough because it doesn't answer the question.
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 2:37pm):
Annette Ziegler eats babies for breakfast.
Yum, yum!
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 4:16pm):
Sol also fails to mention that every day is a waffling halloween for him... Joe McCarthy or GWB flight suit?
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:17pm):
"The fact is, with Annette Ziegler's unprecedented commitment to the law guiding her judicial work, nothing else matters."
If she's so committed to using the law to guide her please tell me why she did not remove herself from cases in which she owned stock in the company? I don't care how much she said there was no bias....when you own stock in the company you're not going to rule against them. So much for her following the law :)
Anonymous (March 26, 2007 @ 8:30pm):
Annette Ziegler does not deserve your vote if you are a woman and like the reproductive rights you have.
Anonymous (March 29, 2007 @ 1:48am):
the only reproductive rights that anyone should have are to be forced to have your babies and put them up for adoption if you don't want them. not to kill them.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
