December 11, 2008

Following the logic

Xoff at Whallah! is monitoring the barely coherent gesticulations of local radio shouter Mark Belling (so you don't have to).

Belling claims that Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Randy Koschnick is "decrying" Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's "obsession with overturning the convictions of criminals."

(That would be Belling's own outlandish characterization, evidently.)

But Koschnick, in his former pre-judge incarnation as a State public defender, "is the lawyer who tried to help Ted Oswald get away with murdering a cop."

Therefore Koschnick has "as much credibility on these issues as [Belling does] at a teachers union meeting." (Apparently Belling has something against teachers as well.)

Koschnick is challenging Abrahamson in an election next April. Lawyers, trial court judges, and appeals court judges all play significantly different — and equally legitimate — roles in the system.

And those are precisely the distinctions that Mike Gableman assiduously and disingenuously labored to erase in his own quest for one of those positions last winter.

Elsewhere Xoff reports* that Marquette law professor Rick Esenberg has formally spurned John Foust's invitation to enter the race.

Mr. Foust's little-publicized entreaties are buried throughout the comments threads at Esenberg's now mostly dormant blog.

* WisPolitics.com wants $75 to view the Esenberg "press release." Is that some kind of a joke?

3 comments:

John Foust said...

Yes, I believe I encouraged Esenberg to do so during the Butler/Gableman because it was clear he was smarter and sharper than Gableman.

What, you think I was the first to ask? I bet there were more than a few "atta-boy, your turn will come" handshakes after the taping of his WMC commercials.

I haven't read any of Koschnick's decisions. Has anyone, anywhere?

Obviously, it's a good time to ask Belling and friends why it's not OK to be a public defender. Louis Butler sits anxiously in the front row, awaiting the explanation.

Yes, $75 is what you pay for premium content. With it, you could get the rest of Esenberg's press releases in the weeks to come, just in case he's forced into the race due to the all the adulation received after this denial.

I wonder how much the Recess Supervisor will charge when he splits his blog into free and premium levels of inside-baseball. And how could he do it? The titillation comes from the vague hints; those who'd pay for it are the only ones who already know who he's talking about.

illusory tenant said...

Dear lord, don't say "press release."

John Foust said...

Yes, I said "press release" on purpose.

I haven't plunked my $75, but if it wasn't a press release, why didn't Esenberg just say "no comment, no story"? That would've been the easy way to avoid the fluttering.