Opinion
Gableman disgraces Supreme Court race
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jack Craver:
- ALRC vote important, boycott not (October 29, 2009)
- Madison needs to help homeless (October 15, 2009)
- Drink it in: Eagon fighting for student input on ALRC (October 8, 2009)
- Walker and Doyle two sides of fiscally irresponsible coin (October 1, 2009)
- GOP's leadership fit the standards (September 24, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Today Wisconsin voters are charged with the task of electing a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The intense showdown between incumbent Justice Louis Butler and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman has so far put Wisconsin’s judicial system in the national spotlight.
Liberal editorialists across the country have used the race to argue that the obscenity of unlimited campaign spending, which now defines legislative politics, has infiltrated the courts — American government’s supposed last bastion of objective thought.
And they’re probably right. In fact, a poll of 894 elected jurists in 2001 and 2002 by Justice At Stake, a nonpartisan judicial watchdog, showed only 36 percent of judges chosen by the people say campaign contributions had “no influence at all” in their rulings. Wow.
In the current race, more than $2 million has already been spent solely on TV ads, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Business groups have pumped money into the Gableman campaign in an attempt to shift the court from a 4-3 liberal majority to a 4-3 conservative majority. So it would make sense that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page scoffed at the liberal cries for judicial reform. After all, where are you going to find a better investment than in a judge these days? Certainly not in the stock market.
But the need for reform has been made even more obvious because one of the candidates is so flagrantly dedicated to being a politician in robe that he has actually criticized his opponent for following — of all things — the law.
For starters, the Gableman campaign has attacked Mr. Butler for the nickname “Loophole Louie” that he earned during his time as a public defender. Mr. Gableman has repeatedly made the point that as a judge, Mr. Butler continued to allow loopholes in the law to set dangerous criminals free. It would be thoroughly fascinating to hear what extra-legal strategy Mr. Gableman intends to pursue to deal with the bad guys. Alberto Gonzales probably has some ideas — and probably even some time to spare for the would-be judge.
In fact, the Gableman campaign dedicated an entire attack ad to revealing a particularly nasty truth about Mr. Butler: Back when he was a criminal defense attorney he actually — defended criminals.
Mr. Gableman’s allies in the business community have joined the chorus, comically asserting Justice Butler focused on “needless technicalities” when presiding over a murder case. The question every responsible voter should be asking is, if law isn’t based on technicality, what is it based on? Gut? Well, as much as some of us may want it to be at times, we do not live in Colbert Nation.
Actually, if interpreted literally, Mr. Gableman’s campaign rhetoric has him to be very uninterested in legal questions at all and instead completely dedicated to political ones. He has contrasted Mr. Butler’s supposed commitment to freeing criminals with his support for “law and order.” He touts the support he receives from law enforcement officials and brags about his experience as a prosecutor. When given an opportunity to ask his opponent a question at a recent debate, Mr. Gableman chose not to probe Mr. Butler about legal philosophy but instead to inquire into why the sitting justice did not have more support from Wisconsin sheriffs.
These pathetic ploys to pit constituencies against each other are textbook in a political campaign but are not traditionally deemed “in bounds” for judicial races. It is to be completely expected when a politician plays favorites like Mr. Gableman has. Clearly, he has cynically calculated that people who believe the Fifth Amendment is a rather important “technicality” will not vote for him anyway and therefore should not be addressed in his campaign. That’s what American politics is all about: rival constituencies fighting each other tooth and nail for control of our country.
Wisconsin voters cannot allow this type of demagoguery to become an accepted path to the courts. The politicization of the judiciary is the first step toward the disintegration of the separation of powers. If Mr. Gableman is elected, this travesty will be realized.
In politics we use re-elections to hold politicians accountable and to force them to reckon with the will of the people. However, when it comes to the judiciary, we need judges — whether elected or appointed — who will disregard public opinion and follow nothing but the word of law.
Jack Craver (craver@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in history.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
IP hash: 3412785f
Justice Julius Butler’s ruling that a boy who ingested lead paint could sue paint manufacturers whether or not they were responsible, raises serious questions regarding his view of justice. To Butler, it matters not whether the defendants were negligent or fraudulent, only that some boy has been harmed and industry has the ability to pay. Absent the necessity to prove culpability, Butler’s view amounts to forced charity under the pretense of a trial.
IP hash: 60e9c4fe
8:13’s post is brought to you by our “favorite” lobbyist group, WMC, where corporate profit takes precedence over the regular folks of Wisconsin.
IP hash: 2560700c
8:13—
Ruling that he could sue, means that he has the right to take the manufacturer to court. It does not hand him the money, or establish culpability. That is for the trial to decide, and most likely for a jury to decide.
IP hash: cab7f4a6
8:13: it’s called market share liability. Take a Torts class. (Though, don’t quote me on whether it’s currently good law in Wisconsin.)
IP hash: 74a2a5fa
8:13, Who’s Justice Julius Butler? Is that Louis’ brother?
IP hash: 3412785f
“8:13’s post is brought to you by our “favorite” lobbyist group, WMC”
Not true. And, yes, corporate profits take precedence over theft.
Also, you don’t have the right to sue anyone you want. There are certain conditions you need to meet before taking someone to court. Namely, that you propose to show that they have caused you some harm.
Butler explicitly stated that he doesn’t care whether the plaintiff could show culpability. He said he doesn’t care whether the defendant actually harmed the plaintiff; only that they have the ability to pay. This is unjust.
Current tort law is unjust.
IP hash: f0b3ab37
It’s all about Liberal activist judges who choose to legislate from the bench, rather than follow the law, as written. It’s time we get a judge who follows the law and respects the balance of power. This is why we have the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the government.