Better Checks and Balances

Checks and Balances Prevent Bad Government

Our government is built upon the premise that having three co-equal branches will prevent the unbridled exercise of power by any one or even two of the others.

Legislatures pass laws, the executive branch executes and enforces laws and courts interpret and apply the law to conflicts that inevitably arise between the other two branches or between parties who claim conflicting application of laws. Courts are given the final say on what a law means, if the law is being applied fairly and as the legislature intended or whether the law or its implementation are within the boundaries set by the constitution.

Governments run into trouble when all three branches are controlled by a group with a shared ideology that excludes input and consideration of the views of others. We live in such a time of unbridled exercise of power by a group who ignores those with differing views.

The only available check against this abuse of political power is by the people casting their ballots in elections to fill the seats in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

The next such election is fast approaching. It will decide whether Wisconsin’s Supreme Court will continue to follow a conservative republican ideological agenda or begin a swing to a more balanced check on the excesses of the conservative Wisconsin legislative republican majority supported by an equally excessive conservative republican Governor.

Judicial races are supposed to be non-partisan. People running for judge or, in this case, Justice are not supposed to run as republicans or democrats. They are supposed to run as impartial advocates for the rule of law. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for much of Wisconsin’s history. While there have been many impartial judges and Justices on our courts, there have always been those beholden to special interests in those seats as well.

With the conservative take-over of our government, bought and paid for by dark money special interests, the non-partisan nature of our judiciary is a dim memory. A majority of the Justices on our Supreme Court were elected as proud conservatives whose pockets and campaign funds were filled with conservative corporate donor cash. The implicit promise made in exchange for the cash was unquestioning support of the conservative agenda. That ends up, not with principled decisions based upon logic and legal precedent, but result driven decisions that break the rules our judiciary is supposed to follow.

The most recent result driven decision by the conservative majority on our Supreme Court involved Wisconsin’s Open Records law that was once the envy of the nation because it exposed the inner workings of the government for all to see. The Court’s most recent interpretation followed two other decisions, all of which increasingly limit what we can find out from our government officials. The case was brought by a teachers’ union against the school administration that refused to provide records involved in a union recertification election. The Court ruled against the union, not based upon precedent, but based on evidence not in the record before the Court. It appears the majority wanted to rule against the union and did just that.

The current race for the open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court pits a Walker ally conservative trial court judge, Michael Screnock, against two others identified by the dreaded demonic “Liberal” label, Tim Burns and Rebecca Dallet. Conservatives now hold five of the seven court seats and Screnock’s election would maintain that edge.

Screnock’s sole qualification is that he represented the governor in court before the governor appointed him to the bench in 2015. He is supported by large donations from out of state dark money groups bent upon maintaining conservative control of our state’s government.

Rebecca Dallet has spent 20 plus years as a prosecutor and trial court judge in Milwaukee County. Up until her most recent TV ad, she tried to maintain at least a facade of impartiality even while soliciting support and endorsements from those associated with democrats. Her newest TV ad leads with a blatant anti-Trump spot meant to signal she’s really one of us.

I like Tim Burns for the Court. He is brutally honest about his progressive values and the need to restore a more even balance to the Court so that it can serve the functions it was designed to perform. His legal career has been spent doing battle with insurance companies on behalf of those injured by others and his promise is to stand up for the average person against the excesses of government.

If you want a Supreme Court that will start on the way to being an effective check on excesses by the other branches of state government, make your voice heard in the primary election on February 20^th.

Waring Fincke is a retired attorney and serves as a guardian for a Sheboygan County non-profit agency.