.

Why Would We Want A Police State?

Roggensack sells out to Law Enforcement interests in bid to be re-elected to WI Supreme Court.

State Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack is running for re-election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

She is currently running ads that tout that 62 of Wisconsin's County Sheriffs have endorsed her for re-election.

Again, law enforcement officials are endorsing Roggensack for re-election — and she is proud of that.

I for one do NOT want a Supreme Court Justice to beholden to law enforcement officials, or to pander to them to get re-elected.

When a citizen is charged with a crime, that citizen is entitled to be tried by his or her peers, and to have an impartial judiciary ensuring a fair trial.

And if that citizen is convicted and has an appeal that goes to the Supreme Court, again, that citizen is entitled to an impartial judiciary.

In my opinion, Roggensack is selling out her impartiality to law enforcement in order to be re-elected.

Why would we want our judiciary to sell out to law enforcement, Wisconsin is not some Banana Republic or third world country that is run as a police state, and I think virtually all Wisconsin citizens prefer having checks and balances between law enforcement and the judiciary.

Justice Roggensack — I think you should RECUSE yourself from this election as you are unable to recognize a conflict of interest.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

David Tatarowicz February 12, 2013 at 11:45 PM
@JB I do not like to see ANY group make endorsements for Judges. And I have always thought it repugnant that so many groups do. I also find it repugnant that judicial candidates "pretend" not to be partisan --- I have been at both Democratic and Republican party meetings, and witnessed judicial candidates come to address the groups and "wink - wink" I am NOT a "Republican" - "Democrat" -- depending upon who they were pandering to --------- and then they would go on with something like -- "but let me tell you about my father who worked hard in the (pick one) party for years and worked to get that party's politicians elected ....... yada, yada, yada
David Tatarowicz February 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM
@Greg So because I believe in constitutional rights and protections -- I cannot be an Independent ?? I don't think I would consider myself a "moderate" if that would imply that I am not committed to those things I believe in --- I do not take Moderate Stances on my Beliefs. I know there are a lot of folks who speak of their Constitutional Rights when it comes to the 2nd Amendment --- but somehow they think very little of other Rights -- such as Habeas Corpus, Probable Cause, and Warrantless Searches !!! I am pretty sure that I have written before that I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment -- I have owned guns since I was twelve, and I do have a ccw permit for when I choose to exercise my right.
David Tatarowicz February 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM
@Mike Your extrapolation of the logic in this blog would make Mr Spock's ears fall off. Maybe I should start writing down to a level that you could comprehend.
Brian Dey February 13, 2013 at 12:10 AM
Let me tell you a story David. When I won a seat on the RUSD BOE, I was endorsed by all of the unions affected back in 2005. My time on the board, I was advocating for the same changes that came in Act 10. I even told them upfront that I didn't want their endorsement and that I didn't believe in public unions. Just because you are endorsed by a group, doesn't mean you owe them a thing, nor does it mean you sought it. why I think that this is the dumbest post I've read is because jumping to the conclusion that a judge is going to throw out the Constitution just because law enforcement endorses them is absurd. Especially when that sitting judge has a 10 year voting record that completely counters your belief.
Brian Dey February 13, 2013 at 12:13 AM
David- Your paranoia astounds me. Roggensack has a 10 year record to stand on. To believe that a sitting judge would throw away the Constitution to get a few votes is absurd.
David Tatarowicz February 13, 2013 at 12:31 AM
@Brian You are right that just because a group endorses you does not mean that you sought that endorsement. However you are missing the point that Roggensack is PUBLICIZING her endorsements by law enforcement ! By her touting the endorsements, she is at least implicitly saying that she is going to be a Judge who favors Law Enforcement --- and you do not know that she did not solicit those endorsements, you are making an assumption. Now that you have brought up her ten year voting record as proof that she does not lean towards Law Enforcement in her opinions, please share that information with us to prove your contention.
David Tatarowicz February 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM
@Brain Again, please share that record with us to prove your contention. And since when does being paranoid mean that you shouldn't be afraid?
Brian Dey February 13, 2013 at 01:20 AM
David- I really think the onus is on you to provide proof that Roggensack would be in the back pockets of the police. After all, the whole premise of your post revolves around that assumption. I merely suggested that she has a record of 10 yrs on the Supreme Court bench, and you offered nothing but opinion to make such a claim. And Actually, her record dates back to 11996 where she served on the Appeals court prior to the Supreme Court.
Brian Dey February 13, 2013 at 01:22 AM
David- I have made no claims, but you have. Please share with us why you believe that after sitting on a bench be it the Appelate Court or Supreme court since 1996, that she would favor a police state as you claim.
Brian Dey February 13, 2013 at 01:24 AM
par·a·noi·a /ˌparəˈnoiə/Noun 1.A mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked... 2.Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification. I believe number 2 applies in this case.
CowDung February 13, 2013 at 02:36 AM
Guilt or innocence is determined by the jury, not the judge. Having a 'tough on crime' judge doesn't mean that the trial will not be fair, it means that the guilty will receive a proper sentence.
CowDung February 13, 2013 at 02:41 AM
David: One cannot prove a negative--it's basic logic. You are the one making the claim here--if anyone needs to provide proof, it would be you. Roggensack has a long record as a judge--have we been in a 'police state' since she was on the bench?
Steve ® February 13, 2013 at 02:47 AM
It's all been said but this is a joke right? If not I think the left in this state has gone even more insane than I thought was possible. Man Walker is your kriptonite. Don't bite anyone I don't want any more Walker zombies around.
J. B. Schmidt February 13, 2013 at 03:07 AM
@David Then who are you supporting?
Born Free February 13, 2013 at 03:24 AM
@ Dave T.: Since when does a Supreme Court in the U.S. seat one and only one judge? Last count there are 7 of them checking and balancing on Wisconsin's Supreme Court bench. All of them have an opinion and voice not just the one you don't like. If any one of those judges had the audacity to issue executive orders like they were belt fed through a machine gun then yes that would be a banana republic government. That would in fact be tyranny. You failed to point out just how she's providing/facilitating a police state even though you did point out there are 62 Sheriffs offices already in existence (actually there are 72 and all of them (Democrat or Republican) are elected by the people (Democrat or Republican) not the courts). Looks like checks and balances there too, Bubba. Your beef is with the Sheriffs in that they took an oath to defend the people of the state of Wisconsin and it's boarders from a tyrannical federal government! THAT'S CHECKS AND BALANCES and your having a major problem with that. You and your liberal friends got it in your heads that state boarders are just lines on paper just for the purpose of state tax collections. Big, big, big mistake!
NObama 2012 February 13, 2013 at 03:42 AM
Why do Progressives hate the police so much?
The Anti-Alinsky February 13, 2013 at 04:18 AM
I think we can agree that it is the stupidest blog David as ever written. David, that is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE stretch. I know you can't believe any of the tripe you just wrote above. When you go out and hire someone, you want someone that is going to get the job done. The 62 Sheriffs that have endorse Roggensack want someone that will uphold the law. When they and their Deputies go out and make an arrest, spend time transferring them to jail, and fill out a ton of paperwork, they want to know that the charge will stick. No, they know not everyone will be found guilty, but they don't want to see the bad guy let off on a silly little technicality.
GearHead February 13, 2013 at 04:44 AM
Wow! Of the many things to be concerned about regarding activist judges, that one is 999th on the list. Have you stumbled through the rabbit hole? I mean, channeling your inner Jason?!
GearHead February 13, 2013 at 04:51 AM
David, you must be mixing your headlines with some another article. Isn't the title of your article is better suited to an argument that supports gun control? Because a police state is what you will end up with when you lose your 2A rights.
Terry February 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM
OK, as I speculated above, the real test here will be the test of time. We are well into the second day of this blog posting, and it has attracted NO supporters. In this day and age of polarized opinion, and the politics of hate, I am pretty sure I could post a blog calling for clubbing baby seals, puppies, and girl scouts selling cookies; and still get at least someone to climb in the boat with me. When you can't even get the lunatic fringe on board with you, you know that you are truly walking your path alone.
David Tatarowicz February 13, 2013 at 04:31 PM
@CD Many trials --- probably the vast majority of them, do not include a jury --- any lawyers out there who have information better than my anecdotal observations, please speak up. And even with a jury, it is the judge who decides what can or cannot be brought into evidence, and who instructs the jury about what they should or should not consider from the proceedings. The judge oversees the trial and can influence it in a many ways. Lastly, it is the judge who does the sentencing --- and also the judge who decides if a plea bargain can be made. The judge has the control --- and if the judge is impartial, great -- but if the judge is biased -- all bets are off.
David Tatarowicz February 13, 2013 at 04:41 PM
@Gearhead I am happy that you are concerned about our rights --- and that you would not want a Police State. Logically I assume that you are very concerned about the Patriot Act and all the rights that it has stripped from citizens. I would hope that you are actively working especially against the New Power that has been given to Law Enforcement Authorities to execute a "Secret Search" of your property --- and Never Even Tell You About It !!! If you come home some day and your place is torn apart --- Law Enforcement may have ransacked your home with a secret search warrant --- and you will think perhaps burglars --- after all if it was the police, they would have told you ?? If they "think" you "may" possibly be a Security Risk -- or anyone else in your household, or someone that you are friends with --- Law Enforcement can tear your place apart and never tell you. Hmmmmmmm --- I guess that they can do that now because the courts let them ??? What do you think?
David Tatarowicz February 13, 2013 at 04:45 PM
@Terry Guess I am obviously not preaching to the choir --- what has surprised me the most about the comments made to this post is that almost everyone is looking at it as a Partisan based post, or make their comments based upon Partisan Politics. I wonder where all the Libertarians have gone ? Do you think Ron Paul would dismiss this concern ?
CowDung February 13, 2013 at 04:47 PM
At the supreme court level, you are probably correct. Their arguments are more toward the constitutionality of legislation and reviewing appeals rather than trying suspected criminals. That does bring up the question though--where exactly are the unfairness and partiality, David? It would seem that police are biased toward enforcement of the laws. Endorsements from law enforcement should indicate that the candidate is thought to be the best at enforcing the laws--convicting the guilty and protect the innocent. There is nothing inherently unfair about the laws of our state being enforced, is there?
Steve ® February 13, 2013 at 04:50 PM
The National Association of Police Organizations endorsed 3 time loser Barrett in 2012 for the recall. Where was David's blog about a police state then? http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/153607105.html The Police union did the same http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/148666115.html
David Tatarowicz February 13, 2013 at 05:11 PM
@Steve You make a very good point. I don't think that police or military, as a group, should endorse any politician. They all have their individual rights to contribute to and vote for candidates as private citizens -- but their job is to carry out our laws and provide for safety and service --- not to make laws or influence them --- a dangerous precedent as we have seen all too many times in too many parts of the world. I even feel queasy when some former military leaders have run for office. So far we have been lucky, for instance Eisenhower was definitely one of our greatest presidents --- but could you imagine someone like MacArthur --- one of the pettiest and self centered people to ever wear a uniform !!
DICK STEINBERG February 13, 2013 at 05:18 PM
Police unions were exempt under Act 10 and have awesome power to arrest and endorse. There is no need for local police unions to exist in order to endorse candidates for public office and then be neutral in serving the general public.
Terry February 13, 2013 at 09:24 PM
Why would I assume this is Partisan? Because you are David. Frankly, your claims to come from the middle are somewhat suspect if examined under the scope of your posting history. You are far from moderate, and I have been around long enough to know that. And don't be disingenuous about the audience here. There are enough divergent opinions monitoring this site, that it is telling that no one is supporting this.
GearHead February 14, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Actually, it used to be when law enforcement endorsed a judge (or candidate) it carried a lot of weight because most folks like the idea of a conservative judge who is tough on crime, and upholds the Constitution. It still does now, which why you might be upset, David. But what is the alternative? Would you prefer the criminals and moocher class endorse her? Those would be the type the ACLU jumps through their shirt to defend. Ahhh, that is the endorsement her challengers are seeking; The left wing of the WI Supreme court is the best gift criminals and moochers could ask for. Let's keep it in the minority.
GearHead February 14, 2013 at 10:55 PM
BTW, your concerns about the Patriot Act overreach aren't without merit. And I'm no fan of Homeland Security that prefers pretend security measures like feeling up elderly women and little kids, to getting serious and profiling real threat. Still, to say law enforcement endorsing a judge is somehow advocating a police state is a reach. Concern yourself instead with how the police (all forms of civil and military forces) will react when the EBT grocery cards stop paying out, and the looting and rioting begin. Can you say martial law? Isn't that another fancy name for police state?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »