Isn't remote jurisdiction still jurisdiction?

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

[Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Mike] Gableman has acknowledged he used his government phone to call the fund-raising staff of Republican Gov. Scott McCallum and others but has insisted the calls were not for political work.

I just called, to say, 'I love you.'

Records show dozens of calls were made to McCallum's fund-raisers, his campaign headquarters, the state Republican Party headquarters and McCallum donors in the weeks before Gableman hosted a June 12, 2002, fund-raiser for McCallum.

McCallum appointed Gableman to be Burnett County circuit judge two months later.

"Even though Gableman had not applied for the job or been reviewed by an advisory council McCallum set up to review judicial candidates."

But nobody in the entire State of Wisconsin has had the authority to investigate any further, or so they all say. Best of all, Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen had to step aside from any potential inquiry because Mrs. Van Hollen once worked for Gableman.

"We're not going to grasp for jurisdiction that is at best remote," [Deputy AG Ray Taffora] said.

Nope, never heard of a lawyer making a case for jurisdiction, no matter how "remote" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Nice. Enjoy your banana, peons.

Additionally, it's disingenuous of the Journal-Sentinel to be referring to One Wisconsin Now, which initiated the investigative request, as an "anti-Gableman group." First of all, OWN advocates for a wide array of other issues and concerns apart from Mike Gableman.

Second, "anti-Gableman" fails to capture the most significant reason why many of us opposed Gableman's candidacy: the unseemly — if not downright reprehensible — nature of his political tactics.

Had Gableman not so deliberately and flagrantly abused the electoral privilege but rather engaged in a level of debate that respected the office to which he aspired, I'm certain he would have at least earned the professional respect of his political adversaries despite any disagreements over so-called judicial philosophy.

He may even have still won the election.

But that was too much to ask for. And if that was what we get in opposition to a moderate like Justice Louis Butler, who knows what Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson — who is marginally closer in terms of judicial disposition to the phony caricature Gableman and his supporters painted of Justice Butler — will face next spring.

Hold your noses, Wisconsin.

More: Van Hollen helps run out the clock.