If you had heard Annette Ziegler argue against this, you would have been immediately transferred to that Alternate Universe so beloved by consevatives. "If this recusal is allowed, you'd have lawyers forced to give money to judicial candidates they don't agree with..." Thereby admitting that lawyers only support candidates in order to buy favorable rulings.
Here's a crazy idea. Why not make judicial races publicly financed so there is no chance of buying opinions?
$upremely WMC (Wisconsin Manufacturer’s Court).
If the $upreme court is to be theirs, shouldn’t they also pay to taxes to support the institution? Since it no longer belongs to the people, why on earth should they pay for it? That’s taxation without representation. Bastards.
I officially have zero confidence in their judgment or independence. ZERO!
Right On Kay. From the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign:
Contact your legislators to urge immediate action on Impartial Justice bill.
If yesterday's outcome didn't drive home how much Supreme Court election reform is needed, we're not sure what will. For those who need no further convincing, if you haven't already responded to our call to action in our last E-Lert, we hope you will take the time to contact your legislators today.
Wow - what a reasoned, responsible, polite post.
So persuasive.
Daaaaaaaaaaaaah tank ya very indeed
Gee, Brad, sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. I don't feel compelled to be polite to people who are taking my freedom away. Reasoned? Responsible? I'm sorry, again. But, I don't find any reason or responsibility_to_justice in the outcome of this recent overthrow of more American values by people on the payroll of big business.
Commenting by HaloScan
