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.
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
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.
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.
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.
And since when does being paranoid mean that you shouldn't be afraid?
/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.
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?
Man Walker is your kriptonite. Don't bite anyone I don't want any more Walker zombies around.
Then who are you supporting?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
I wonder where all the Libertarians have gone ? Do you think Ron Paul would dismiss this concern ?
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?
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/153607105.html The Police union did the same http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/148666115.html
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 !!
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.
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.
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?