Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Petri, and Ryan endorse Judge Gableman for Supreme Court

[undeterred]

Gableman Campaign: Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Petri, and Ryan endorse Judge Gableman for Supreme Court
1/21/2008

Contact: Darrin Schmitz [phone]

Wisconsin Congressmen say Judge Gableman has “the experience and perspective the high court needs.”

Three members of Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegation threw their support behind Judge Michael Gableman today in the race for Supreme Court. U.S. Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner Thomas Petri, and Paul Ryan all signed on to endorse the Burnett County judge, citing his strong law-enforcement background and common-sense approach to the law.

“I’m proud to endorse a candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court who understands the important role of the judiciary is to apply, but not make, the law,” said Congressman Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I’ve seen too many judges in recent years bring a political agenda with them to the bench. I’m confident Judge Gableman will be a justice, not a legislator.”

“Judge Gableman is exactly the kind of judge we need for the Supreme Court here in Wisconsin,” said Congressman Paul Ryan. “As a former prosecutor, he’s dedicated much of his life to keep our neighborhoods a safe place to raise a family. Wisconsin voters can trust the Judge Gableman won’t look for loopholes for criminals to crawl through.”

Judge Gableman served as a district attorney before assuming the role of Burnett Circuit Court Judge, and is the only candidate with law enforcement experience running for Supreme Court.

“Judge Gableman’s extensive and impressive background sets him apart. His work as a prosecutor, private practice attorney, judge and a teacher gives him a unique and diverse set of experiences that form a great foundation for serving on our state’s highest court,” said Congressman Tom Petri. “The Wisconsin Supreme Court will surely benefit by adding a judge of such character and integrity.”

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=116103

So much for a non-partisan judiciary. :evilfrown:

[Zynx]

1. Now I know who not to vote for already.

[undeterred]

2. Vote for Justice Butler.

Feingold endorses him.

But an election seems like a crazy way to pick a Supreme Court.

[Zynx]

3. It sure is.

[vireo]

4. Did Ryan really say (write) this?

“As a former prosecutor, he’s dedicated much of his life to keep our neighborhoods a safe place to raise a family. Wisconsin voters can trust the Judge Gableman won’t look for loopholes for criminals to crawl through.”

If so, he's an even bigger idiot than I had suspected. Either that or the Gableman campaign should invest in a proofreader.

[undeterred]

5. Its presented as a quotation...

I guess I just presumed he was an idiot.

[undeterred]

6. The right calls Justice Butler "Loophole Louie"

I heard that explanation from one of Butler's campaign people today, so I guess that makes sense of Ryan's otherwise incoherent comment.

See also http://badgerblogger.com/?p=6378

[Sabien]

7. what a surprise

:puke:

[BeaverDem]

8. Actually I think its an issue that any elected official is endorsing a Candidate

Now I know its so tempting to want to pull for the "Democratic" leaning candidiate in a non partisan race.
I mean I ran for city council while being vice-chair of the county dems, so Im one to talk. However with the courts I think its bad news for either side to "claim" a candidate because the notion of an independent and not partisan fair judicial system is the most important cornerstones of the system.

The state bar has formed a citizen action commitee in reaction to the debacle that was the Ziegler - Clifford race
so if you get a chance feel free to take a look.

www.WiFairCourts.com

[undeterred]

9. I don't know how else most of us would know who to vote for

How does the average person know anything at all about judges? In Chicago I used to look at the list provided by a certain group, but the truth is I really didn't know that much about their biases. I probably shouldn't have voted at all. For now, if Feingold endorses Butler, that's good enough for me.

But I really do not think this is the right way to appoint and retain supreme court justices.

Edit: Thanks for the link. I always used to look at the lists from the League of Women Voters.