Taking it to Justice Prosser, and pretty hard

On the attack (30 sec. video spot):
David Prosser refused to prosecute a priest

Hardball. And that there is slouching towards Gableman (the distinction being that Gableman's own slouch was an Authorized By Gableman Production, whereas this is third-party speechifying).

But hey if you're a conservative who loves you some Citizens United* and are inclined to hoot down campaign finance reform, deal with it.

Not to mention believing it's a fabulous idea to elect justices. If there was any pretense remaining that the election coming in eleven days is anything other than a referendum for political control of the non-political branch of government, abandon that pretense forthwith.

(It's also likely to be all about voter turnout in Milwaukee County. If Prosser's opponents can GTFOTV there, they'll be well on their way.)

* With a side of carefully spun Caperton v. Massey for good measure.

eta: Told ya it was slouching towards Gableman.

It's always a deadly serious concern of criminal prosecutors, whether to put victims of child sexual assault through the trial process grinder and without knowing the full complement of facts, it's difficult not to give then-Outagamie County DA Prosser the benefit of the doubt.

And yes, the DA often knows better than the victim what's in store.

In more than one sense, this is like dredging up Louis Butler's public defender work, as became a central issue in the spring 2008 election. But thanks to Gableman, the GWC's speech is vigorously protected.

Nevertheless, I don't think political interest groups owe any allegiance to the ABA's canons of professional ethics and courtesy. The GWC's canons are much less restrictive. The trouble arises when judicial candidates abandon their professional guidelines for political ones.