
But it pays to remember that Prosser originally dominated this race with 55% of the primary vote. That means he's gone from shoe-in to losing, if only by a handful of votes. Prosser was going to win this in a walk, then everything got turned on its head. Republican over-reach comes with a price for conservatives.
Despite Prosser's complaints that he was attacked by special interests, Kloppenburg backers were outspent, making this the most costly Supreme Court race in Wisconsin history. Outspent and against a candidate who looked like a sure winner, Kloppenburg was able to close the gap and -- if barely -- overcome it.
It shows the left finally realizing that judges matter. It's one area that liberals have ignored, while conservatives have concentrated on it. Part of this is because of the support the right gets from religious whackjobs, who look to the courts to overturn abortion laws and rule against gay rights cases. And part of it comes from big business, who seek to buy outcomes by cherrypicking pro-corporate activists to sit on benches around the nation.
I said it yesterday and I'll say it again -- the idea that an elected office is nonpolitical is untrue. If Supreme Court races were run with any sort of connection to legal reality, judicial candidates would not promise to be "tough on crime." One, it betrays a bias against the accused, which is especially galling when they refuse to say how they'd rule on other cases, and two, criminal cases only make up a small fraction of the rulings handed down by the courts. But I guess "I promise to be tough on abutments and easements" doesn't really have the same ring to it.
When outside business interests pour a substantial amount of money into a state Supreme Court race, they don't really have fair justice in mind. And a business based in Texas doesn't really care much if a candidate promises to be tough on Wisconsin crime. It's part of a politico-legal strategy to get away with as much as they can possibly get away with. When major polluters who've paid heavy fines give money to a judicial candidate, it's not a lot different from a crime syndicate doing the same. Both are organizations with a "troubled" legal history and both would have only one motive for their support -- they want to stop being troubled by the law. If they can't get legislators to give them a pass, they have the courts as backup.
So here's hoping that the Kloppenburg-Prosser race represents the first of many. Liberals need to realize that judgeships are political, because they've already been made political. And that's not likely to change. Full public financing of judicial elections would go a long way toward doing away with the political influence in court races, but that's not going to happen any time soon -- if ever.
Until we recognize that the courts are important political offices, conservatives will continue to dominate them, big money will continue to get a pass, and the average voter will keep seeing their relevance and influence in America dwindle.
-Wisco


mdanz · 727 weeks ago
I generally use the case of Caperton v. Massey to demonstrate how corporations have infiltrated the courts in the states and how judges rule in their favor and refuse to recuse themselves.
Now, the Supreme Court heard the case and ruled against Massey Coal by a 5-4 decision.
But it's the minority's dissent(Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito)that should concern all Americans.
They have no problem with corporate-owned judges.
Scalia: "The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest cannot succeed - which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable."
Roberts: "...a ‘probability of bias' cannot be defined in any limited way. The Court's new "rule" provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be."
Got that? the mere probability of bias cannot be defined according to Roberts, and Scalia's just an unserious smartass. People like Don Blankenship can buy state supreme court justices, but according to the wingnuts on the S.C., determining a probability of bias, especially in a case brimming with bias-- will lead to allegations of bias.
Just because they're articulate, doesn't mean that they're not bat $hit crazy.
C'mon, Kloppenburg! The closeness of the election is a bit disheartening considering the elevated profile.
GriperBlade 70p · 727 weeks ago
@IASFlipadelphia · 727 weeks ago
anon · 727 weeks ago