Opinion: Editorial

Abrahamson for justice

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Support Abrahamson for Supreme Court (April 3, 2009)
• Fighting Nass-ty (January 27, 2009)
• Democrats need to play Republican game in Supreme Court race (February 12, 2009)
• End judicial elections (April 6, 2009)
• Madison in need of clean elections (April 12, 2007)

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

• Inching toward legalization (November 23, 2009)
• Dissent: An impaired decision (November 23, 2009)
• Nike contracts: Nix or fix (November 20, 2009)
• Another justified denial (November 19, 2009)
• Woulf at the door (November 18, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

In the election for Supreme Court justice, how you vote hinges on one thing: What your definition of “judicial activist” is.

Randy Koschnick, a Jefferson County Circuit Court judge, certainly thinks his challenger for the bench, Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson, fits that definition. For Koschnick, expanding court rulings into mandates for future legal procedure is activism. Ruling on a case on politically centered ideologies is activism. Reading too much into the Constitution (meaning anything not explicitly stated) is judicial activism.

And he may be right. But we’ve seen no evidence Abrahamson has done any of those things. And given Koschnick’s backing from groups like the Christian-based Promise Keepers and Wisconsin Family Council, we’re not sure we believe his assertion that personal views on religion will not seep into future Supreme Court decisions.

This is especially concerning in light of a recent Supreme Court decision in neighboring Iowa declaring that state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional. If there’s one place where “judicial activism” is most prevalent, it’s in the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban. Since Koschnick seems ready to defer to the Legislature on most issues not explicitly outlined in the Constitution, we do not trust him to adequately mete out justice when it comes to the most prescient civil rights cause of our time.

So, given Abrahamson’s time already on the bench and support from many respected law enforcement and legal professionals, we endorse Shirley Abrahamson.

Our decision to endorse is a pragmatic necessity. Reasoned, rational justices are needed on the state Supreme Court. But our idealistic sensibilities understand proper jurisprudence is not something voters are prepared to decide upon. Therefore, we reaffirm our desire to see the state switch to an appointed system of justices rather than the misdirected free-for-all we’ve seen recently.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | April 7, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply
IP hash: 2a2323ac

So you slam Christians, call Koschnick a liar, imply that defending the state constitution is “judicial activism,” and say that Abrahamson’s endorsement is a necessity. How much did the Democrat Party pay you?

Anonymous | April 8, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply
IP hash: b66196cd

Abrahamson FTW

Anonymous | April 8, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply
IP hash: e97298bd

Bad judge winning FTL

Leave a comment

To comment anonymously or if signed in, leave name and e-mail blank.

Name

E-mail

Website

Remember personal info?

Comments