I'm with Keith. It cost us a lot of money to buy that bench so we can have ideology put in place without prejudice or with anyone to question the will of the governor. By putting someone on the bench who will not rubber stamp everything they're told to, it will be chaos in the state. Sure Roggensack isn't as easy to lacky as Prosser, but still she's easy to control and that's all that matters.

Another coward who has to hide behind a screen name............

@Keith - You have zero evidence to back your claim of Fallone "making law from the bench". Its funny on both sides how judges we disagree with are "activist".

Try dumping the awful talking points from the GOP executive board in Waukesha and try having a discussion with the Patch community.

You're right Keith. This "Mr. Christensen" hides behind a faux name in order to cowardly besmirch the good name of grand Republicans who we have taken the time to caress into obedient servants to the cause. Too much hard work goes into securing people to vote for our interests with people like "Jeff" trying to wreck our good name. Come out of the shadows "Mr. Christensen." Keith is right to stop hiding behind the name!

Agreed. Anyone group or person who refuses the orders of Scott Walker or The Party at any given time is not worth listening to. Just think. If Patience loses we might not be allowed to mine the snot out of northern Wisconsin for profit. And once we drive them off the land with the poisoned water from the mines, they will be forced to move to our area where they will have to purchase homes from us. It's a win-win that Roggy already has promised to do as instructed and allow for the mine to go through.

Does that mean you'll be voting for conservatives in other races in order to preserve that balance, should the court swing in the liberal direction?

@Lyle Ruble, so then you admit you're for judicial activism, for judges and justices making law from the bench. Here's what........That is what the legislature is for.
Roggensack deserves re-election.

@Bob McBride....I would vote and have voted for conservatives to maintain a balance of power. My ideology commits me to the separation of powers and the action of compromise as the best way to govern. You and I have had this discourse in the past. I love it when the governorship is with one party, one party controls the assembly and the senate is controlled by the other party. Out of this comes the best legislation. It's not efficient or pretty, but it protects us the citizen from tyrannical legislation and over bearing chief executives.

@Keith Best... Your interpretation of my position is wrong. I believe in courts ruling on the law and its adherence to the constitution. Your putting out the old conservative argument that when a court goes against you, its judicial activism. Justices, especially, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, since they must be elected, are subjected to political forces that are significant. Wisconsin has the most politicized Supreme Court I have ever lived under.

In addition, people tend to look at the court as far as short term decisions, but the court must take into account the long term, since they set precedence that will be used for years to come. A ruling that goes against your or my ideology gives cause to claim the court biases. However, in the present court, there is no doubt to its present conservative bias, which supports one party conservative governance.

Personally, I don't take balance of power into account when I vote, which means I honestly haven't voted for someone I perceived as being the liberal choice out of the pack for that express purpose. I'd be very curious to know which conservative(s) you voted for, and when, for the purpose of maintaining the left/right balance of power, Lyle.

Hmm, if ones priority/justification/purpose is in voting for 'balance of power' purposes 'within' a branch of government (ie WI State Supreme Court), then in two relatively recent US Senate elections one would have voted for Tommy Thompson and before that Ron Johnson was the only choice.

Remember, for US Senators it is not the balance within Wisconsin;only the voting balance of the entire body is relevant.

@Bob McBride....Let me give you some examples of my owning voting record:
Nixon - voted for twice
Mondale - voted against
Clinton - voted against twice
Orin Hatch - voted for three times
Alberta Darling - voted for twice
Ed Garvey - voted against

As I have claimed, I am neither Republican nor Democrat and vote for what I think is best for the electorate. Sometimes I've been right and sometimes I've been wrong.

@Jay Sykes....Your logic only holds if the competing candidates are equally qualified. However, since I can't vote for senators outside of Wisconsin, then I have to limit my choice for who I can vote for.

And you voted in those cases primarily to assure a balance of power between those on the left and those on the right? In other words, when voting against a Democrat, you voted for the most likely candidate amongst those considered to be conservatives to actually win the election - i.e., the Republican?

@Bob McBride....In short, yes. For the most part, in the past there wasn't that much that separated R from D.

@Lyle... I'd rephrase Bob's question and ask you to tailor your results to the last 15- 20 years; where you voted 'against your political ideology', and you voted for the candidate that ultimately won the position. All done for the purpose of maintenance in political balance.

So seeing as you are consitent I assume you will be voting against the democrats at the federal level.

Oh wait...

@Lyle,

You neglected to tell us about how you voted on Baldwin and Thompson. How well did your pursuit of "balance" get executed in that race?

@Joe Peterlin....."Marxists", come on let's keep it real! Marquette Law School is not exactly known for its extreme socialist or Marxist philosophies. Better a constitutional scholar than a conservative ideologue.

@c...That's where our definitions differ, I don't think the sitting Justice is as qualified as her opponent.

Fallone thinks he is qualified because Russ Feingold (yes, that rusty) says he is. Feingold has a PAC that is raising money for Fallone.

I'm with Keith Best! Seriously, if you want a qualified person to endorse you, it's Scott Walker. That man knows character and has always made sure to hire the most upstanding citizens in the state! Russ Feingold has hired criminals in his office unlike Scott Walker!

That "citizenry" learned that Feingold has more in common with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez than he does with most of the people in this state. And go stick your "Chatty Cathy"....my opinions are my own.

The Feingold bashing is starting among the Walker supporters like Keith Best. Tammy has shown the way for Russ to run against Walker in 2014 for Governor.

@Keith - If this is the rhetoric of the Waukesha GOP Executive Board, then I pity the condition that your party is in.

Please try laying off the childish rhetoric and try having a discussion with the Patch community.

Keith Best hits it out of the ballpark again! Feingold was willing to "talk" with people like Castro and Chavez. What a snob. Now Roggy pals around with Scott Walker. A man who chums around with a man connected to white supremacists with pride. And Keith isn't afraid to show he's still proud of Walker by doing so by making his profile picture of that of the leader of The Party.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ron-robinson-james-b-taylor-young-americas-foundation-white-nationalists

Once we get Roggy back in we can wipe our butts with the law and force the rest of the slobs to obey The Party law! Roggy '13 WALKER '14 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Karen...Both the US and Wisconsin Constitutions are very clear about the separation of powers and maintaining a balance. Only the supreme courts can determine if any given law or executive order is legal under the constitutions. It is entirely possible and highly probable that an elected legislature and chief executive can enact statutes that are deemed unconstitutional. This protects us from the possibility of tyranny perpetrated by single control of both the legislature and chief executive. There is a whole school of thought that addresses the excesses of the massed majority. Key to our constitutions is the protection of the minority from the whims of the majority.

Luke - I had no idea you lived out of state.

Dirk - I couldn't agree more. You have no idea.

Wasn't Roggensack a material witness to the 'incident'? It was proper for her to recuse herself...

You may want to rethink your 'concern', Bren.

It seems that it wasn't 'putting politics first', but rather state law that required Roggensack to withdraw.

"Roggensack said she had no choice but to withdraw, saying she was a material witness to the Bradley altercation. And Roggensack – who, like Prosser, is part of the court’s four-member conservative majority – said it’s against the law for judges to take part in cases in which they were witnesses."

http://wixx.com/news/articles/2012/may/02/justice-roggensack-withdraws-from-prosser-ethics-case/

Dogone you.... CowDung & Luke.

Now Bren is going to have to thunk-up another reason NOT to vote for Roggensack.

@Bren
A witness in a case cannot be a judge in the case.

In addition, you are writing as though certain accusations are true, when in fact they are disputed.

What is interesting is that your argument is a political one, yet you criticize someone for making a decision on legal grounds of being politically motivated. I suppose that should have been expected, in that you posed the issue in a question that was pregnant with an assertion that was political in intent.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission recommended that the court "discipline" Prosser, which I define, appropriately in this instance I believe, as a chastisement. Most of us would reasonably expect some sort of caution or warning for similar behavior in our own place of employment.

So when do we start holding elected officials, any political party to our own standards? Any who voted for Prosser, have you personally put your hands around a colleague's neck in anger? Have you every threatened to "destroy" a colleague in anger?

This was a missed opportunity to send a message to a man with documented anger issues. As an individual who aspires to professionalism, I do have an issue with this and will look forward to hearing Justice Roggensack's rationale on the matter as the race heats up.

Bren:

Considering that I have never been attacked by a colleague, I have never had occasion to place my hands on their neck in anger...

What part of "it’s against the law for judges to take part in cases in which they were witnesses." are you failing to understand, Bren? What kind of explanation are you looking forward to hearing from Roggensack?

Cow; there's a difference between what occurred through the DA's office and special prosecutor, who ruled there wasn't enough evidence to support prosecution, and the post-decision ethics complaint filed by the WJC. (The WJC and the Dane County Sheriff's office opened the initial investigation.) Prosser has been at the center of controversy before for what are termed "outbursts," the latest before the Bradley incident was in 2010 directed at Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson (he called her a b---h and threatened to "destroy" her). In that instance he admitted that he "overreacted" but didn't apologize. That's just not professional behavior. I maintain my view that some step should have been taken to rebuke his behavior, including (my opinion) a recommendation for anger management therapy.

I'll be waiting to hear Roggensack explain what, if anything (including unofficial) conversation was had with Prosser about the incident, which was by no means isolated.

This may seem a small matter, but consider, if this is what colleagues have to deal with imagine but subordinates might be going through (and if rumors are to be believe he is "difficult"). We the taxpayers pay Prosser and his subordinates, and it makes me uncomfortable that I am supporting bad behavior without a scrap of accountability.

What about Bradley's bad behavior, Bren?

There were accusations that Bradley "charged" him but others say that she told him to leave her office because he was having an outburst. I'm thinking this is a volatile guy who has lashed out at a female justice for the second time in 2 years, this time physically. Remember that former Gov. Patrick Lucey, who was Prosser's campaign co-chair, resigned saying that Prosser demonstrated "disturbing distemper and lack of civility." Who'd want to work for this guy?

Yes--Bradley charged him. She was the aggressor.

It's pretty clear that Prosser was defending himself as the incident took place near the door. If Prosser were the aggressor, he would have been moving toward her and the contact would have been made further into the room.

It sounds like Bradley has some problems with anger as well.

@Karen....When and what cases are heard is the privilege of the Supreme Courts. As in the case of the Voter ID law, the court is letting it go through the lower courts before it decides whether or not they will take it up. There are many variables involved and it is never certain what will be heard or if they will just allow the lower ruling to stand.

Liberal activist judges are getting the bad press, for good reason.

“Today’s federal court ruling confirms what we’ve known all along: Act 10 is constitutional. What we’ve seen in this case–and with so many others before it is that a liberal Dane County judge made a political, not a legal, decision.”