March 12, 2008

Gableman v. Numbers

I sincerely hope something got lost in the translation here, but the Journal-Sentinel's Greg Borowski tells of a candidates' encounter at the Milwaukee Bar Association today, where Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman reportedly said the following:
[Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis] Butler pointed to Gableman's statements that Butler has sided with criminals 60% of the time. Butler said he had reviewed all the cases since he joined the bench, and found he upheld criminal convictions 75% of the time.

The percentage would be higher, he said, if appeals not accepted for review had been included.

Gableman said the 60% figure came from a study by an outside group.

"I don't know if the number is 30%, 60%, 80%, or 90%," he said, before adding, "I'm unaware of any study that contradicts those numbers."
Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?

In other words, his unawareness evidently extends to the whole shootin' match. How exactly is this person qualified for the State Supreme Court? I've not seen even a remote inkling of a good reason, but there sure are a whole hell of a lot of really bad ones.

h/t capper.


capper said...

Perhaps this was the first clear observation of the "Gableman Gut Check".

Oooh, that's a good one. I think I'll patent that one.

Anonymous said...

How about he sides with criminals 100% of the time?

After all, it's hard to imagine there are any principled limits to Gableman's ability to avoid data contradicting stuff he says.

illusory tenant said...

Furthermore, if Butler overturned 25% of the criminal convictions that made it to full review by the Supreme Court (which requires a very close question to begin with) and where the so-called "traditionalist" members of the court joined with Butler, then to criticize those opinions is to criticize yourself, if you're at the same time presenting yourself as comparable to the "traditionalists."

For example, in State v. Brown, one of the centerpieces of the anti-Butler advertising campaign, Justice David Prosser, along with Butler, joined Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's opinion in its entirety.

In other words, you can't use State v. Brown to point out that, unlike Butler, you'll side with the "traditionalists," because the leading traditionalist sided with Butler in State v. Brown.

Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Gableman.

Sam Sarver said...

Heck, why not take my earlier suggestion and just accuse him of siding with Satan himself (insert random number here) percent of the time?

capper said...

Coming next from Gableman:

Louis Butler eats babies and burns churches, and not necessarily in that order.

Other Side said...

One should burn the churches first in order to have a fire to roast the babies in.

Anonymous said...

Not to get all necro-thread, but iT did link back to this article...

Anyhow. Just wanted to note how incredibly depressing the outcome of that election is, lo these months later, when looking back at the deeply shameful and stupid things Gableman and his campaign team said.