October 1, 2009

F. James Sensenbrenner* v. U.S. Constitution

Neither your advice nor your consent are required, Congressman. So why should they even be solicited. When the Sarah Palin/Sean Hannity ticket triumphs, then you can nominate Michael Gableman.**
"Under the Bush administration ... "
They consulted the Federalist Society. Cry us a river, Uncle Jimbo.
"The people of Wisconsin deserve better."
Why do these conservative Republicans insist on attacking good people? Go and bother one of your own, like maybe David Vitter.

* (R-Mequon Country Club).

** Gableman managed roughly 9% of registered voters in the election to which Rep. Sensenbrenner refers. Quite the powerful mandate and, believe it or not, the basis for Sensenbrenner's "argument."

He's also neck-deep in battling charges he lied about his opponent.

Even so, it was fully 9% more than either Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia or John G. Roberts ever collected in their lives, yet I don't hear Mr. Sensenbrenner complaining about any of those three perfectly legitimate exercises of a duly elected president's executive power.

eta: A commenter at a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel politics blog reminds us and Mr. Sensenbrenner how former Attorney General John Ashcroft was defeated in a popular election "by a CORPSE."

Which is amusing, but not analogous to the meritoriousness of Louis Butler's nomination, although the usual partisan hacks will assert otherwise. Hopefully the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are able to restrain themselves during Butler's hearing.

Given the presence of Tom Coburn and Jon Kyl, there's no guarantee.

Oh, and one more thing:
The voting public does not have the slightest idea which candidates are qualified or what are the qualifications for a good judge.
"Elitist"? Perhaps. But in complete accord with the Framers of the Constitution. Who also limited F. James Sensenbrenner to two-year terms and kept him away from the judicial selection process.

In their wisdom.


Anonymous said...

You can rip on Sensenbrenner all you want but the inconvenient truth is that Butler lost two elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court (the first time he was trounced). It's hard not to conclude that Butler's nomination to the federal district court had more to do with politics and political correctness than merit.

While you can criticize Gableman for his campaign ad, the fact is that Butler (aka Loophole Louie) had a clear record of voting in favor of criminal defendants in cases decided by 4-3 votes. During Butler's (fortunately) brief time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he cast votes which resulted in the reversal of two murder convictions, a sexual assault conviction, a sexual predator commitment and the suppression of evidence in a murder case. Butler also dissented in numerous cases where the defendant's convictions were upheld. It was for this reason Gableman had the endorsements of ten times as many Sheriffs (50 to 5) and a majority of the DAs in the state. The voters had every right to consider these facts in last year's election.

Your post correctly points out the fact that Sensenbrenner has no role to play in the federal nomination process under the U. S. Constitution but you are quick to throw the constitutional right of Wisconsin voters to elect Supreme Court Justices under the bus. There appears to be some inconsistency here. Butler will almost certainly be confirmed but the real winners will be the criminals and their attorneys. The losers will be law enforcement and crime victims.

Anonymous said...

then feingold has a press release today that essentially says that elections have consequences.

Anonymous said...

All of this, is absolute reason why all statewide offices, should be held in November's general election.

Leave Spring elections to the smaller local offices only.

Then we may not have 9% Justices, like Gableman and Ziegler- who both are insulting to Wisconsin voters with thier shady and 'less than ethical' admissions.

Clutch said...

It's hard not to conclude that Butler's nomination to the federal district court had more to do with politics and political correctness than merit.

It would hard indeed if one could memorize nut-right blogspin but couldn't grasp the basics of the legal system.

Jack Lohman said...

In our moneyed system of electing judges, how can you tell if HE won or lost or it was the money that won or lost? And who in the hell wants a judge funded by special interests? Not me, and not even by the special interests I support.