November 18, 2008


I mentioned yesterday that while Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy Koschnick managed to deploy the several magic Republican code words "judicial conservative," "activist," and "legislate from the bench," he left out "restraint."

Seems I was mistaken:
"A judicial conservative like myself believes in judicial restraint," Koschnick said.
And, for good measure, "Scalia" and "Clarence Thomas."

Also, this intriguing observation:
Koschnick said that his record as a public defender may be used against him in the campaign.
By whom, and for what purpose, one has to wonder. I think I can guarantee that it won't be used against him by Chief Justice Abrahamson. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, perhaps?

Or maybe Judge Koschnick's own (no pun intended) campaign team.

The University of Wisconsin Badger Herald's report describes the spring 2008 judicial race as being "marked by intensely negative campaigning from both campaigns." If this is supposed to be a statement of equivalency, then it's ridiculous. It's also a trope that was uncritically foisted locally by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Let's hope they pay closer attention this time around.


JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

It's crazy to me that anyone still thinks Scalia is a judicial conservative, or bases his decisions on the original intent of the framers. I think Thomas still basically does, but after Scalia found that the interstate commerce clause allowed congress to regulate something that wasn't interstate and wasn't commerce (in Raich) he lost me.

illusory tenant said...

To be fair to Justice Scalia, he didn't join the majority opinion in Raich, and he agreed that simple possession is neither interstate nor commerce.

What he said essentially is that it was "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate all Schedule I controlled substances in order to achieve its larger goals, which were authorized by the Interstate Commerce Clause.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

How exactly is that different? In order for the necessary and proper clause to mean anything, he has to believe that one of the "foregoing" powers (in this case the Interstate Commerce Clause) applies. Either way, he's expanding "commerce among the several stated" to apply to something that isn't commerce and isn't among the several states. If you're an originalist, the necessary and proper clause only allows you to execute power already granted by the constitution. See Federalist 44.

That's the whole problem with Scalia. He's only an "originalist" when it fits his politics. Which makes him not an originalist at all.

illusory tenant said...

A "faint-hearted" originalist, as he puts it.

Display Name said...

From the news bit: "He also offered a clean campaign pledge that includes a promise to repudiate false accusations made by third-party groups during the campaign."

Along these lines, I think it would be most interesting for the two candidates to discuss the accusations that were made in the Gableman / Butler race. Randy, you go first.