There are plenty of horrible politicians employed by the state of Wisconsin. Most lie, many are corrupt and at least some, according to several reports, are pathetically stupid.

You only have to look at the defense that former Assembly Speaker and convicted felon Scott Jensen used when appealing his charges on public misconduct — that he shouldn’t be punished because everyone else was doing it — to realize that many Wisconsin pols aren’t qualified to raise children (However, it wouldn’t be so bad if Jensen’s logic were applied to our nation’s drug laws.)

But of all the awful politicians in our state, Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is undoubtedly the absolute worst.

It’s not that he’s less honest or less competent than the scores of Senate and Assembly members who bring the intelligence of our electorate in to question every day. His presence in state government is simply illegal and serves as a reminder that our judiciary is a sham and cannot be taken seriously.

To summarize quickly: Gableman accused his opponent, incumbent Justice Louis Butler, of having secured the release of a child molester during his time as a public defender who later re-offended. Regardless of the horrible ramifications this kind of anti-constitutional rights mantra has for criminal justice in Wisconsin, the important part of the story is that it is completely untrue.

Although Butler did represent the felon (as he was legally required to), his advocacy did not directly result in the man’s release. The guy was simply paroled several years later. Different attorney.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has charged Gableman with making false statements, which is a violation of the state Judicial Code of Conduct. The commission should rule that Gableman did make false statements (which he clearly did) and it should recommend his expulsion from the court. To do anything less is to accept that our judiciary is corrupt and incapable of reading laws, which is its sole function.

Realistically, this hope of mine will never materialize. The Judicial Commission is very reluctant to “disrobe” justices — even those who so obviously deserve it.

The only remedy for the disgrace brought by judges like Michael Gableman is the abolition of Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin.

Voters should have a right to elect liars to public office (I do it all the time), but judges should not have any incentive to lie to the public. If there should be any incentive to lie, it should be for the politicians who appoint them.

For instance: “Gov. Doyle, I assure you I will never rule against the teachers’ union.” Or, “Gov. Walker, I promise I will do whatever I can to advance the interests of the Wisconsin Family Alliance. Bible-thumping will be the beat to which I play judge.”

This is a much better system than the current one, because judges could then disregard their promises to the governors and perhaps — just maybe — do their jobs correctly. That’s the way the U.S. Supreme Court works. Think Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Both were no doubt expected to toe the Republican Party line on the bench, but both nevertheless disappointed the right-wing activists who were counting on them in no time.

So gubernatorial appointment or appointment by committee is the way to go. But it’s only part of the way. There are still some well-intentioned and misguided people who think appointments should be affirmed by a voter referendum. Nothing could be worse. For justice to rule legitimately, judges should have no reason to question their interpretation of the law by interpreting the political winds. We have to have one branch of government that is not held accountable to public opinion at all times. It is this quality of constitutional government that preserves rights and rule of law.

Wisconsin could even go further than the federal government and serve as an example for the country (as it should at all times). Rather than have justices serve for life, we should keep the terms at 10 years. This would decrease the very real problem of senility which frequently plagues government.

Not everything in government has to be credible. But the court is different. A credible court establishes a minimum expectation of good, legal government. And this is the foundation to a system that works — no matter how many degenerates and morons are included in the other parts.

Jack Craver is a senior majoring in history and the editor of The Sconz (Thesconz.com), a local politics and culture blog.