Talk is already starting about the upcoming Supreme Court race, where Justice Patience Roggensack is up for reelection.
Roggensack is the least offensive of the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court. But that is only because she is the only one that hasn't been charged with ethics violations.
The crew she hangs with includes:
- Annette Ziegler, who presided over cases which included the bank at which her husband worked without disclosing it. This was found to be a matter of "serious and willful" misconduct.
- Michael Gableman, who broke judicial ethics laws by running a race-baiting campaign commercial he knew to be false.
- David Prosser, who physically assaulted another Supreme Court Justice, trying to choke her (then establishing an illegal legal defense fund). He also ruled to overturn the injunction against Act 10 without even bothering to consider the facts of the case and in apparent collaboration with the Republican leadership of the legislature.
She did unquestioningly go along with the incorrect and politically biased decision to reinstate Act 10, regardless of the facts. And after Prosser put a choke hold on their fellow justice, Roggensack twisted the law so that she could recuse herself and not hold Prosser accountable for his actions.
Needless to say, Roggensack is a mere puppet and rubber stamp for all that is wrong with the state and has willfully failed to meet her responsibilities as a justice on the highest court in the state.
So far, three people have either stated that they are running or are seriously considering it.
The one person to say that he is committed to running is Vince Menga, commonly known as the King of Lemon Laws, due to his proficiency in suing auto dealers who push faulty vehicles. Menga is also known for a series of videos, like this one, that he's made attacking Republicans and their foolish policies.
While Menga is undoubtedly familiar with the law, there is no way he could present himself as a impartial jurist. He's even refused to take on Republican clients, for crying out loud.
While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I just cannot take him seriously as a candidate to be a Supreme Court Justice.
|Judge Maryann Sumi|
The Republicans/WMC/RWNJs will attack her for her decision. In fact, two right wing puppets have already done so. Owen Robinson slams her for not being neutral, while trying hard to ignore the acts of Roggensack, Gableman, Prosser and Ziegler and their WMC backing. Even more comical is the way that Jim Troupis - famous for his roles in Michael Best & Friedrich, the gerrymandering scandal and the voter suppression scheme - plays into the rubbish.
They will have a hard time slandering her though, given the fact that Roggensack herself has upheld decisions by Sumi 12 out of 13 times. And the one that Roggensack overturned was due to a clerical error, not an incorrect decision.
Out of the three potential candidates, the one with the most name recognition would have to be Judge Sumi. Her biggest problem would be if she could overcome the vast amount of corporate cash that will be poured into the race in an effort to buy it for Roggensack like they did for Ziegler, Gableman and Prosser.
The third person who is interested in a possible run is Professor Ed Fallone of Marquette University.
|Professor Ed Fallone|
But one should not let Professor Fallone's equanimity fool you. He is a constitutional scholar and does not let foolishness stand unaddressed, especially when the fool purposely tries to misrepresent the law and the Constitution.
You can also get a sampling of Professor Fallone's keen understanding of the law in his opinion about the more recent ruling which found Act 10 to be unconstitutional.
While Professor Fallone is unquestionably qualified for the job and is a great speaker and very personable, he would also have to overcome the juggernaut spending from groups like WMC.
I am not sure that he enjoys the same name recognition that Judge Sumi has, but that might not be a real problem. In the last Supreme Court race, JoAnne Kloppenburg came out of nowhere and almost won the race in just a couple of months.
I do have to admit finding it somewhat disconcerting that Professor Fallone expressed a reluctance to run if there was a primary. I certainly hope that this would not keep the public from the opportunity of voting for an extremely qualified candidate.
The one thing that each of the potential candidates, as well as the rest of us, needs to keep in mind is that the right will try to portray this race as some sort of referendum of Act 10. They will spout out their specious arguments that anyone opposing Roggensack is trying to thwart the will of the people or they are trying to somehow undo Walker's last two elections. Or that we are all a bunch of Muslim, Communist, Socialist, Pagan, [insert bigoted slur here], [insert misspelled vulgarity here]s.
This is, as the gentle reader knows, a load of poppycock.
First of all, Scott Walker testified, under oath, that he did NOT campaign on the union-busting measure. Nor was their any referendum regarding Act 10. So any claims that this was the will of the people is nothing but bovine manure.
This race is about who will best uphold the Constitution and act in good faith and with impartiality on how the law applies to any given case. And that is something that Roggensack has repeatedly demonstrated that she is either unable and/or unwilling to do.
And since someone will ask anyway, I would prefer to see Professor Fallone on the Supreme Court. That said, I would also have no problems with supporting Judge Sumi if she ends up being the candidate.