November 4, 2009

WMSC recusal rule reax

Stanley Kutler is well worth the read:

Justice O’Connor must be appalled

I reckon she is also.

Actual Racine Journal-Times headline:

Supreme Court recusal rule is disgrace to state

Whoa. That guy's reaction makes my own seem cold, calculated ... practically Zen-like. So somebody was paying attention; that's good to know. Even the otherwise restrained Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel inquires boldly of the court(s):

To the highest bidder?

More than just a little rhetorical, I feel we have to take that as.

I don't know about that "impartial justice" bill the J-S is promoting, however. Looks more like an instantaneous constitutional flusterpuck to me. But, hey. It's nice work if you can get it.

This was a nice touch, though:
Such purveyors of so-called phony issue ads as the Club for Growth and the Coalition for America's Families.
Dadburnit, there's that pesky Coalition for America's Families agin.

Last we all reconnoitered them thar badlands, Mr. R.J. Johnson of "shadowy interest group" renown was a top Scott Walker for Governor (never mind America's Families this time around) desperado.

Is that still the case?


Brett said...

"justice isn't blind - she's the hooker down on the corner looking to turn tricks for cash." --Commentator on

John Foust said...

Repaired link: To the highest bidder?

Terrence Berres said...

Justice O'Connor sounds appalled by judicial elections, per se; "No other nation in the world does that, because they realize you're not going to get fair and impartial judges that way."

illusory tenant said...

What can I say? She's a Reagan Republican.