MADISON, Wis. — In response to calls from the family of the victims of sexual assault who Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce outed in a $1 million ad campaign for Michael Screnock, WMC has taken down the list of its board of directors from its website.
“The family of the children who were victims of sexual assault who WMC outed demanded WMC’s ad come down and in response WMC took down the names of its board of directors,” said Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now Executive Director. “This shows that in their desperation to try and win an election WMC knows it did something hideous and now they are trying to hide.”
When it comes to figuring out what the electorate may look like for Tuesday’s Supreme Court election in Wisconsin, I think it’s instructive to look at three different sets of Wisconsin electorates.
1. The primary election in February.
2. The April election in 2017 – where Tony Evers easily won the School Superintendent race with a Dem-leaning electorate, and then contrast with the 2013 April election where now-Chief Justice Pat Roggensack cruised to a win with a GOP-leaning electorate. April 2016 is a bad example because of the much higher turnout due to contested presidential primaryies going on for both parties.
3. The November elections of 2016 and 2014, to give an idea of the difference between a November electorate and an April.
While justices have been known to change while serving on a high court, most tend to conform to the record of their past legal career. Dallet’s career has been that of a mainstream prosecutor and judge who has been endorsed by more than 175 judges in Wisconsin. She seems most like the late moderate conservative justice Patrick Crooks, who was tough on crime, but parted with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on key issues like recusal rules and campaign coordination.
As for Screnock, he has already let us know he will emulate Gableman, an aggressively right-wing justice who operated as a rubber stamp for the conservatives who now rule this state. That’s how Screnock operated as a lawyer, and nothing in his campaign has suggested he sees any reason to change.
MADISON – At Monday’s Milwaukee Bar Association debate, Judge Michael Screnock was presented with multiple opportunities to commit to behaving ethically on the state Supreme Court. He declined to commit to recusing himself from cases involving his major donors at every turn.
Wisconsin’s largest corporate lobbyist, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, has spent more than $1.35 million in its attempts to elect Michael Screnock. This is particularly important because WMC and its member corporations frequently are party to cases before the Supreme Court. This spending would present Screnock with a massive conflict of interest should he be elected to the Supreme Court.
The entire state has only two contests to be concerned about.
Justice candidate Rebecca Dallet
One is electing Rebecca Dallet to the state supreme court. She is the only acceptable candidate, demonstrated by the desperation of the ads against her (arguing not that she let anyone go but followed the family and prosecution’s advice in sentencing).
She is also the first step in restoring balance to the court.
In 2019, Shirley Abrahamson’s seat is up, and though she has not announced if she is running again, her legendary distinction will carry liberal weight. In 2020, before the next presidential election, it is the unknown justice under the gun – Daniel Kelly, appointed by Walker to fill out David Prosser’s term. He has never faced the voters at any level, serving mainly as litigator and conservative hired gun on gerrymandering. Dallet will be the start on turning the high court back to normalcy.
The other important vote is No on eliminating the office of state treasurer. This is simply a power grab by the executive against the state’s banker, who should be examining in a watchdog role billions of dollars in common aid to schools and libraries while also serving a key role on the commission for public lands.
In a victory for this case, [Clean Water, Inc. and Lynda A. Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources et al (Wisconsin Case No. 2015CV002633)], we are pleased to share the July 14, 2016 Circuit Court [Judge John W. Markson’s] decision that affirms the petitioners’ and partner organization Clean Wisconsin’s argument before the court that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ rejection of the Division of Hearings and Appeals’ Administrative Law Judge’s order to include animal unit limits and off-site groundwater monitoring of Kewaunee County CAFO was unlawful. This decision also describes how the Department of Justice’s narrow interpretation of Act 21 – that the DNR did not have explicit authority to impose these permit conditions – was incorrect and that state statutes do empower the DNR to require limits and monitoring of pollution in order for permitees to comply with state and federal clean water laws.
We conservatives might well be ahead to go through the process of hearings at this time rather than to engage in our current “we won’t do it and you can’t make us” snit fit. The Congress can either give a thumbs up or deny the appointment. In either case, the Congress will have discharged its duties and responsibilities rather than to have simply stuck its collective head in the ground, thus avoiding its duty and being subject to further scorn by the Democrats.
But more importantly, in the recusal area, the Court’s concern is not limited to the potential for a “quid pro quo.” Rather, the constitutional inquiry is directed to any circumstance in which a judge’s ability to be impartial might be questioned. Substantial and impactful campaign support can create a “debt of gratitude” that creates an unconstitutionally high appearance or risk of bias. But that’s not the only source of bias. The Court made clear that the due process clause requires“a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” to determine whether there is “such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment” that recusal is required.
Justice Rebecca Bradley’s student writings on AIDS demonstrate a lack of compassion, and her response to their disclosure demonstrate a lack of remorse.
Justice Rebecca Bradley, a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is getting killed in the media for one indiscretion after another. It’s like the old Chinese torture of death by a thousand cuts.
How is it possible that the writings which appeared in the Marquette University newspaper never came to the attention of her Republican buddies? How did her ethical lapse in regards to her extramarital affair and the case surrounding it not register with those who wanted to promote her?
Could it be that Walker and Company were trying to pass a fast one over the public?
Or was Rebecca Bradley somehow able to use her womanly charm on a governor who had the power she needed to get a step up the legal ladder? Did she bat her eyes, or flip her hair back, or tell him much Ronald Reagan would be proud of his anti-union stands?
There has to be some explanation for the total lack of accountability as to how Bradley was able to get this far with such a troubling and tawdry past. Voters need to know the truth.
This is framed as a scandalous, extramarital affair, even though Bradley was separated from her husband at the time of her relationship with Bednall.
Before she became a state Supreme Court justice, Rebecca Bradley represented in a child placement case the former COO of the law firm where they both had worked — and with whom she’d had a romantic relationship.
Steve Walters, senior producer at Wisconsin Eye, asked Kloppenburg to respond to an ad by a third-party group that includes a clip of Kloppenburg saying, “I never said I was tough on crime. Being tough on crime was not my message.” Kloppenburg swiftly denounced the ad saying the clip was 5 years old and implied it was not relevant to the current race. Moments earlier she had pointed to her opponent’s 24 year-old statements as evidence of why she isn’t the right choice for the state’s top court.
“Well, that is a clause taken out of context from 5 years ago,” Kloppenburg said.
Forget hate-filled articles that candidate Rebecca Bradley wrote as a student years ago. Much more important is how she handles that issue today. Much more important are the politically extreme groups in which she has actively participated as an adult. Much more important are the powerful lobbyists and dark money groups to whom she is indebted. Those are much better reasons to not vote for Rebecca Bradley on April 5.
What troubles me, though, is how Bradley comes up with her views today — specifically, are her court decisions derived from precedents and research, or does she justify her decisions through politically conservative viewpoints consistent with the point in time she makes them in? Her recent political associations, which she hardly tries to hide, suggests it’s the latter.
I wrote about Bradley’s college opinions on Monday and explained that her words were troubling because they were very hate-filled. But I also explained my concerns that it seemed like her line of thinking — and in fact, her judicial philosophy — was more derived from her conservative views and what are popular viewpoints in conservatism today, rather than sound research, stare decisis and empirical evidence. – See more at: http://political-heat.blogspot.com/2016/03/rebecca-bradleys-opinions-may-have.html#sthash.303zdoPz.dpuf
The revelations by One Wisconsin Now of Rebecca Bradley’s vile printed opinions against gay people and those afflicted with HIV/AIDS are bad enough, even if she wrote it while she was in college in 1992. First off, I graduated high school in 1992, the summer after Magic Johnson revealed he had caught HIV through unprotected heterosexual sex, and to say something like this about people with HIV/AIDS was way out of bounds back then.