Best quote is from former Journal-Sentinel columnist and now law professor Rick Esenberg:Patrick McIlheran, whose credibility is virtually non-existent on this subject, is referring to this, wherein Prof. Esenberg alludes to the availability of an argument but conveniently doesn't make one.
"While one could argue that a person who has twice lost a statewide judicial race ought not to be elevated to the federal bench, I doubt that argument will carry a great deal of weight with the senators or the White House."
McIlheran's favored candidate, meanwhile, has been for months under investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission. He faces suspension or expulsion from the Supreme Court, either of which is considerably more damaging than having lost an election.
Where is the Journal-Sentinel's antidote to Patrick McIlheran?
I mean, apart from any sort of actual basic reasoning.
2 comments:
How much would you like to bet that the various rightwing bloggers/shriekers who leave the thinking to Esenberg would read that quote and come away convinced that he did give "that argument"?
More than I'd be inclined to bet on the Penguins today. However, any prospective wager that I did make would have to include for McIlheran himself.
Post a Comment