Gableman up close and personal

Courtesy of Milwaukee Atty. Mike Plaisted, who attended the Bar Association event this afternoon:

During the whole forum, Justice Butler tried to draw Gableman out on what exactly is wrong with the decisions of the Court that have provided false fodder for Gableman and his third-party handlers. For instance, in the Brown case (the sexual predator that didn’t get released, although the Farrow/Gableman fundraising letter said he did), how would Gableman have ruled differently and how would he have ignored state statutes to get there? In the Jensen case, would Gableman have joined the majority in making up new law out of whole cloth to get to the desired result? How and by what analysis, Butler wanted to know, would Gableman "legislate from the bench" to reach his desired result?

Gableman ignored all this, of course — the law and legal reasoning being, apparently, for suckers. * * *

After an hour of banging his head against this wall, Butler said that either Gableman hasn’t done the analysis or he is deliberately misrepresenting the results. Here’s one vote for him never bothering with doing the analysis. Mike Gableman is not someone to let himself get confused by the facts. Or the law, for that matter.

Not a word of this surprises me. Although I would additionally argue that in this election campaign, presenting the results without having done the analysis is per se mispresentation and moreover, deliberate misrepresentation because those results are intentionally portrayed in the worst possible light, in ignorance of the case analysis.

It's disgraceful, is what it is.