Elections Do Matter

Elections Do Matter

Our recent state-wide elections brought interesting and hopeful results. Democrats swept the state-wide races and Republicans maintained comfortable, but not veto proof, majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. Hopefully, one of the results will be an end to, if not a tempering of, the one-party rule arrogance that has permeated Wisconsin government since the GOP ascendance in 2010.  

Clearly, Wisconsin voters just elected to move forward with divided government. When power is split between the two parties, no one agenda holds sway. There are only a couple of options. 

The preferable option is for the GOP leaders in the legislature to work with Democratic legislators and the Governor’s administration to find common ground. Polling makes clear that voters want our roads, bridges and other infrastructure items fixed, they want affordable healthcare that covers everybody and they want public education funded adequately. These are problems that transcend party lines and need bi-partisan fixes with which everyone can live. Governor-elect Evers reached out to GOP legislative leaders offering to work with them on these and other pressing agenda items. There has not been a favorable response.

A second, less favorable, option is for the two sides to continue the battle for power and control with the legislature passing bills that Governor-elect Evers cannot sign or fix with the line item veto. The goal here has less to do with actually trying to address real problems with real solutions than it is to make the other side look bad and rack up points to use in the next election cycle. Unfortunately, the GOP’s Assembly Majority Leader Robin Voss and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald are toying with this option by publicly floating proposals for a lame duck legislative session to pass bills stripping the newly elected governor of certain powers they freely gave when a friendly Scott Walker occupied that office. They follow this path at their peril. Voters will see it as nothing more than a naked power grab and a slap in the face for the new administration. The ultimate outcome with this choice will be a do-nothing government until the next election and that will suit many in the GOP just fine. 

An equally intriguing issue is how the legislative races turned out. Even though Democrats scored a 10-point victory re-electing Tammy Baldwin to the U.S. Senate, and took the rest of the state-wide races with relative ease, they lost legislative races to the GOP in staggering numbers. 

Michael Warren, a UW-Madison student journalist, looked at the numbers and came up with this analysis. 

If we look at the votes cast in all the Wisconsin Assembly Races, Democrats out polled Republicans by about 200,000 votes. 1.3 million Democrats voted in Assembly races but only 1.1 million Republicans did. These translate roughly to Democrats casting 54% of the votes to 46% for Republicans. When we look at the numbers of Assembly seats won, in a fair election, we would expect similar percentages to hold. Instead, Republicans won roughly 63% of the Assembly seats to 36% for Democrats. There is only one way to explain those numbers. Unfair partisan gerrymandering of the Assembly districts in favor of Republicans. 

Gerrymandering involves the drawing of state and federal legislative district lines to give an advantage to one party over the other. It is done in two ways, “packing” and “cracking.” The current legislative districts were drawn by the GOP when it controlled the legislature and governor’s office. They “packed” certain districts with Democrats, making sure they stayed blue, and “cracked” other democratic strongholds into several districts, giving Republicans majorities in multiple districts. 

In this past election, there were 35 democratic seats won. 80% of those races had no Republican candidate to challenge the Democrat. In the Republicans’ 64 seat victories, only 4% were uncontested. Republicans did not bother to run in districts “packed” with Democrats while Democrats ran in many more districts because they contained “cracked” Democratic voting blocs. Of the 68 contested races, 41% had a margin of victory of less than 5,000 votes. Thin victory margins rely upon where the district lines run in “cracked” districts. 

Let us add fairly redrawing the lines of Wisconsin’s state and federal legislative districts after the 2020 census to the list of issues the new Wisconsin split power government must consider. Leaving it to partisans leads to unfair gerrymandered districts that favor those in power. 

Six states, some red, some blue, have instituted independent commission systems to draw fair lines that make districts with roughly equal numbers of voters from each party much more competitive. It is part of the Wisconsin tradition to utilize panels of experts to look at and propose solutions to problems free from partisan political influence. We should consider returning to that approach when tackling redistricting while we have time to get it done fairly and correctly. This is another issue voters care about and demand a fair fix.

Confirming Kavanaugh

Confirming Kavanaugh Sends the Wrong Message

The confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh quickly morphed from a dispassionate examination of his credentials and judicial record into another sordid chapter in the divisive partisan politics that have consumed our body politic ever since Newt Gingrich decided to adopt a scorched earth approach to achieve a one-sided political landscape. The partisan divide aside, the hearings also brought sexual assault and violence towards women face to face with angry white male privilege and entitlement. We are none the better for either.

Whether you believe Dr. Ford’s allegations or Kavanaugh’s denials, the televised hearings made one thing very clear. Judge Kavanaugh did not display anything that comes close to approaching the temperament we expect from judges. Having practiced law in State and Federal trial courts, State and Federal Courts of Appeal and the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have run across all manner of judicial behavior. There have been partisans and umpires, those with open biases and closed minds, prosecutors who never left their world view, scholars and political hacks at all levels of the judiciary. Fortunately, many of those ill-suited for the bench don’t last long in the robes. They either chaffed at the constraints or failed to earn the trust of their colleagues. 

The standards for judicial conduct are set out in the ABA Standards of Judicial Conduct and State level equivalents based upon them. Federal Judges, including Judge Kavanaugh who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, are bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. That Code has five Canons which state the broad rules. They are:

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity

Each Canon has detailed explanations of their meanings and the broad sweep of their coverage. 

Judge Kavanaugh’s angry outburst during his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee after Dr. Ford’s testimony and many of his responses to questions put to him by the Senators clearly demonstrated a lack of judicial temperament and violated Canons 2, 3 and 5. Any one of these violations should disqualify him from confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. The most egregious came when he accused Democrats, including the Clintons, of engaging in a calculated conspiracy involving Dr. Ford and his other accusers to deny him his seat on the Court. Kavanaugh’s lack of judicial demeanor caused over 1,700 law professors and the largest group of protestant Christian churches to call for his nomination to be withdrawn or rejected. I cannot imagine ever appearing in his court and expecting a fair hearing while representing a cause even loosely tied to an issue espoused by Democrats or involving sexual violence against women. His mind will be made up before the case is even called.

Kavanaugh’s disqualifying demeanor should have caused those responsible for his nomination to withdraw it or for the GOP Senators to reject it. Neither course was taken. 

President Trump, after weeks of restraint, finally caved back into his baser instincts. He recently tweeted and spoke demeaning Dr. Ford and her unholy alliance with Democrats. He heaped praise on Kavanaugh and bemoaned the damage done to his reputation and family. Most telling was Trump’s rallying cry that young men must now fear being guilty of similar false accusations, especially for youthful indiscretions. Trump and Kavanaugh both expressed their clear entitlement to do what they will as part of their privileged stations in life. No mention was made by either of a need to listen to and address violence and sexual assault against women by men, even young men. 

We are left with a restricted FBI investigation into some of the allegations raised by Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez. So far, this appears to be but a sham to cover loose ends, not the thorough examination of the facts and any corroborating evidence Senators Flake and Coons wrested from Senate leadership before they would vote Kavanaugh’s nomination out of committee. Few now anticipate anything new being added to the confirmation process, especially since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated the FBI report would not be released to the public before the full Senate votes. 

The saddest part of all these machinations is the message being sent to young girls. They still will not hear, “we believe you” if they are assaulted. They will continue to be told that rape is not the fault of the rapist, but their own because they did not keep themselves safe. Kavanaugh’s confirmation will embolden another generation of privileged white men and silence another generation of those abused and violated by them.

Rush to Judgment

What’s the Rush?

Do it Right this Time

What’s the rush to hold a vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court?

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a hearing on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s

 accusations of sexual assault against the nominee for this coming Monday. Dr. Ford’s requested a short delay and rules to ensure a fair hearing and her safety. Grassley already rejected her request for an FBI investigation into her allegations but has offered to have the hearing next Wednesday with questioning to be conducted by an independent lawyer. Dr. Ford is still considering this offer. Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley seems hell bent on getting the distraction caused by Dr. Ford over with so his committee can vote to confirm Kavanaugh’s nomination and pass it on to the full Senate. 

This is no longer 1991 when Prof. Anita Hill leveled sexual misconduct accusations against another Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. Hill’s appearance before the same committee in that year played out on TV and showed the nation what little regard the male Senators had for issues of sexual violence against women. Some of the same Senators who dismissed Prof. Hill then still sit on the Judiciary Committee today and we will soon learn if they have made any progress on women’s issues in the decades that have passed. 

Dr. Ford’s life has already been turned upside down after she revealed her claims publicly in an interview with the Washington Post. She has received death threats, had her email hacked and had to leave her home for the safety of her family. She has every reason to request an independent investigation into her allegations so that there is more than a “she said, he said” record before the Committee hearing. While Kavanaugh’s original FBI background check has been completed, all President Trump has to do is ask that it be re-opened to include Dr. Ford’s claims. So far, Trump has failed to make that request.

Prof. Hill correctly pointed out in an opinion piece in the New York Times on Tuesday that the Senate lacks any kind of protocol for handling claims like those she and Dr. Ford have made. She suggests the outline for one that makes a lot of sense and would take much of the partisanship out of the process.

Prof. Hill suggests that Senators make both claims of sexual violence and the integrity of the judiciary priorities and craft rules that acknowledge the importance of both. Next, she proposes that a neutral body, well versed in sexual violence cases, be tasked with investigating the claims and issuing a report for the Committee to use when it develops questions for a fact-finding hearing. The Committee should also rely upon advice from experts in the field of sexual violence as the hearing unfolds to avoid many of the myths often raised to counter women’s claims, like the “failure to report, therefore she’s lying” claim Trump made Friday. Hill joins the voices calling for a delay in the fact-finding hearing so that a proper investigation of Ford’s claims can be conducted. Finally, Prof. Hill suggests calling Dr. Ford by her name and not referring to her as an accuser or other loaded terms. 

Unfortunately, Prof. Hill’s suggestions are likely to fall on the tone-deaf ears of highly partisan Senators who need Judge Kavanaugh confirmed before the Supreme Court’s new term begins on the first Monday in October, not to mention the mid-term elections that take place a little over a month later. The shaky GOP Congress does not want a slew of 4-4 votes from the Court when a clear 5-4 majority is close at hand. 

There are substantial downsides for the GOP rush to confirmation looming as well. Confirming Kavanaugh’s nomination without holding a meaningful investigation and a fair fact-finding hearing on Dr. Ford’s claims will further alienate suburban women who are already jumping from the GOP ship in droves over Trump’s treatment of women. If the male-dominated Senate pushes Dr. Ford aside, many of those up for re-election in the up-coming mid-terms will not fare well in the backlash.

The #MeToo movement and the passage of time since Prof. Hill was raked over the coals must have had some impact on those in the Senate with any compassion for women who have suffered from sexual violence. Hopefully, Senators Collins and Murkowski will join with Sen. Jeff Flake and slow the train by voting “no” if Kavanaugh’s nomination comes up for a speedy confirmation vote in the full Senate. The ten democratic Senators facing re-election in states that Trump won will have to stand strong as well. A dismissive treatment of Dr. Ford’s claims will make that an easier vote for them all. 

We have reached a pivotal moment in our history. We will soon see how those we elected to represent us choose to treat women’s claims of sexual violence by the prominent and important. They need to start taking women seriously. 

Beware the Federalists

Federalist Society Judicial Ideologues

Injustice Rules

Supreme Court Justices were originally envisioned as impartial arbiters of what the United States Constitution required when disputes arose between people or those between people and their governments, large and small. The Justices are supposed to be legal scholars and put themselves above the partisan fray of their times. The nine who sit on the highest court in the land, after all, have the final say in those disputes they choose to resolve. 

From time to time in our nation’s history, the Court has strayed from its lofty mission of impartial decision maker and become a player for one side or another, diminishing its stature and credibility as a result. We are now caught up in one of those times. Partisanship does not become the blindfolded lady Justice.

The latest assault aimed at capturing the Court’s power and prestige was launched decades ago with the formation of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. It has become one of the most powerful and little known organizations in our political system. 

Funded by libertarians and conservative business interests, the Federalists have for years been recruiting and training lawyers to become judges in our state and federal courts. Those recruited are groomed to be conservative legal thinkers bound by the literal texts in constitutions and amendments. They give no room to modern notions of constitutional interpretation that take social and cultural changes into account when making important decisions. 

Take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for example. It was written to allow slave owning white citizens to keep arms against possible slave insurrection at a time when the average muzzle loading rifleman was at the top of his game if he could get off one shot a minute. Federalist literal constitutional interpretation of this Amendment makes ignores the facts that no one can own slaves anymore or that AR-15 rifles with high capacity magazines and bump stocks can deal death at hundreds of shots a minute. To these limited legal thinkers, this translates easily into banning most forms of gun control legislation as a violation of the original text. 

Our whole system of law is designed to maintain the status quo and apply the brakes to legal innovations. Unfortunately, the maintenance of things the way they are is not sufficient for the Federalists who want to return to a time long past when hierarchical gender roles were clear, white supremacy was the law of the land and government was supposed to stay out of your business.

With the election of conservative legislatures and executives, Federalist judges in waiting have finally achieved their nirvana. With Trump acolytes in control of the Senate, we will soon see a solid majority of Federalist trained or sympathetic Justices in control of the United States Supreme Court. 

Conservative controlled legislatures in state and federal governments will soon pass more laws challenging established precedents involving abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights and many governmental regulations setting up disputes for final resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade provides another example. It established a framework to end illegal abortions and save women’s lives. It did not allow unlimited abortions on demand, as many countries do. It has been used to strike down state and federal laws that limited access to early term abortions. We will soon see outright bans passed in many so-called “pro-life” states and the challenges to them will ultimately be heard by the Federalist dominated Court where they will receive a friendly reception. 

The only potential brake on the wholesale revision of constitutional law the Federalists embrace is found in an often-overlooked canon of judicial interpretation known as “Stare Decisis.”  Simply put, it means the Court should not overturn a prior decision of the same body unless there is a compelling reason to do so. A decision must have been so wrongly decided in the first place that no present court would make the same decision. As with most rules governing interpretation of the laws, there are many exceptions that the Federalists will use to rid us of those pesky precedents they do not like.

This brings us to President Trump’s recent nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh brings not only impressive Federalist Society credentials and experience, he also penned an impressive law review article advancing the startling proposition that a sitting president should not be subjected to criminal investigation or prosecution for illegal acts committed in office. For Judge Kavanaugh impeachment is the only remedy. This had to be seen as a “get out of jail free” card for this president. 

Needless to say, the partisans will pull out all the stops to pressure those few GOP Senators who don’t fear Trump’s tweets and those Democrats elected in Trump country.  It should make for an interesting confirmation process in the Senate. Stay tuned.

Immigration Atrocities

Immigration Atrocities Must Stop

Separating Children from their Parents is Inhumane

The Trump Republican Party’s assault on basic human dignity and respect for the family continues unabated. Every time I think they cannot sink any lower on the depravity scale, they take it further down by miles.

Ours is a country made great and strong by immigrants who came to our shores seeking freedom from religious or political persecution and a better life for their families. My first immigrant ancestors came from Germany in the 1700s and settled in upper New York State. They farmed and became prosperous. They joined the Revolutionary Army and fought with Washington to repel British rulers and undo unfair taxes. My wife’s Brewster ancestors came to Plymouth, Massachusetts on the Mayflower and stood up for religious freedom that came to be enshrined in our founding documents.

Wave after wave of immigrants came to America and helped build our cities, railroads, canals, and many other mechanisms of economic growth. Many who came spoke no English and had no education. They took the jobs no one else who had already gained a measure of security would take. Those immigrants brought their families to a better home than they left.

One of the dark sides of the immigration epic found its way into our history when those who came before and gained some success looked down on some of those who came later as less worthy or less deserving. The newcomers had to knock down these barriers and show their worth before becoming accepted by those several generations off the boat. Sometimes they had to organize into unions to make sure the doors stayed open to continued upward mobility.

Another dark side of our immigration history is found in the treatment of people of color by the Anglo-European majority. The involuntary immigration of those stolen from Africa aside, immigrants from Asia and South and Central America, with skin tones yellow to brown, faced additional hurdles. They tended to settle in Chinatowns and Little Havanas in major cities, seeking the protection of racial isolation.

All of the injustices visited on these later immigrants, pale in comparison to the newest atrocities being imposed upon immigrant families who seek safety and a better life by the Trump administration. It is made worse by the acquiescence of those Republicans in Congress who have the power to stop them.

Following the historical lead from dictators past, immigration authorities are now forcibly separating young children from their parents when the family units cross the border without proper permission. Those now effectively orphaned are sent far from their parents with no way of staying connected and housed in hastily converted empty big box stores set up with wire cages usually found in animal shelters. Their parents are not told where their children are being held and have no way to communicate with them. The damage inflicted upon these young humans by this treatment will stay with them for the rest of their lives. They and we can take little solace in the heartless solution offered by Attorney General Sessions, “if you don’t want to lose your children, don’t come here illegally.”

Not content with just tearing families apart, Sessions recently slammed the immigration door shut to many from south of our borders by announcing that fleeing from domestic or gang violence will no longer be accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum in the United States. The realities of domestic and gang violence in parts of Central and South America are well documented. Those who resist or fail to assist have legitimate fear of violent reprisals and have every reason to flee. 

These immigrants, along with many who come from Mexico without proper visas, are willing to roll up their sleeves and work in our restaurant kitchens, dairy farms, vegetable growing operations, and other occupations requiring long workdays and back breaking labor. They take jobs that most already here never apply to take. Why we shun people willing to work hard and become productive future citizens baffles me.

We have a representative in Congress who plays a central role in overseeing these and other immigration policies and has the power to bring a much more humane cast to how we treat those who come to our shores. Senator Ron Johnson chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He is in a unique position to stop the family destroying atrocities and establish legislative policy on who may seek asylum. Contact Sen. Johnson at 414-276-7282 and tell him to stand up to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

We are engaged in behavior equal to the horrors of the slave trade we fought a civil war to abolish. It must stop.

Attorney-Client Confidentiality Has Limits

The Trump-Cohen Predicament

The FBI raid on the office, home, apartment and safety deposit box of Attorney Michael Cohen and the seizure of his files, hard drives and recordings sure has caused a lot of consternation in Washington. 

As a former criminal defense lawyer, I can say with certainty that to obtain judicial approval for a search warrant application targeting a lawyer’s office, any lawyer’s office, the prosecutor has to go above and beyond the usual showing that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched. The application must also show that the lawyer whose files and records are to be seized was both aware that the criminal activity documented in his files took place and that he was either directly involved in the criminal activity or that his services were being used to shield the criminal activity. 

These extra hurdles exist to protect one of the most sacrosanct legal protections, the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. The things clients tell and give to their lawyers are protected from forced disclosure so that the lawyer can expect honesty from his clients and be better prepared to defend their interests. These communications are protected first by the rules of evidence that prevent the information in the lawyer’s files from being used against the client in court and also prevents the lawyer from being compelled to be a witness against his client. The confidentiality of attorney-client communications is also protected by rules governing lawyer conduct and provides an additional barrier to disclosure of information the lawyer obtained from or about the client. 

Using these protective rules, some organized criminal elements began to hire lawyers to help them conduct illegal activity and protect against the lawyer becoming a government informer. Recall the days of the mob families with their lawyer consiglieries made famous in the Godfather and you get the idea.

In order to prevent lawyers from providing cover to or profiting from illegal activities by their clients, courts and legislatures changed the rules of evidence to add a “crime-fraud” exception to the attorney-client privilege and bar associations changed their ethical rules to prohibit the same kind of activity. 

The approval of the search warrant for Attorney Cohen’s files and documents added an additional level of judicial scrutiny because it had become well known that Mr. Cohen’s main client was the President of the United States for many years prior to his recent election and had continued in that relationship after the election as well. 

There is yet another layer of confidentiality in play. Normally, lawyers are loath to make public statements about representation of their clients. Making confidential information public, removes the privilege that otherwise might have prevented forced disclosure of the information. Additionally, lawyers do not usually make public disclosures about confidential information involving their clients without first discussing the pros and cons of the disclosures with and obtaining the client’s consent to the disclosures in advance. Once the Stormy Daniels door was opened, it could never be closed. 

Federal search warrants issued for lawyers’ offices involve yet another layer of scrutiny to protect confidential information from being disclosed erroneously. Federal prosecutors use “taint teams” of lawyers who are not involved in the case in which the warrant was used. These teams go through all of the information seized and make an initial determination which evidence falls within the scope of the underlying criminal investigation and then exclude from further examination or use by the prosecution team of evidence related to other clients represented by the lawyer and information unrelated to the criminal activity outlined in the warrant application. 

Attorney Cohen and other lawyers for President Trump asked the supervising judge in the case to let them have the first look at what was seized and make the call about what should be shared with the prosecutor. That request was denied, but the judge still has the option to appoint a completely neutral “special master” to either make the initial review or oversee the work of the “taint team” to make sure the privilege is not violated. 

President Trump’s attack on the FBI’s seizures as “un-American” and against the rule of law demonstrate just how worried he is about what Mr. Cohen’s files and recorded conversations might contain. Many suggest that the material seized may very well be more damaging to the President than anything that might come out of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. So far, President Trump has avoided any direct connection to Russian election fraud even while campaign staff and other subordinates have been indicted and convicted of illegal activities. 

The saga got even more interesting when Mr. Cohen was required to identify his other clients so that the supervising judge could evaluate the scope of his privilege claim. He readily gave up the name of a prominent GOP donor who had retained him to make secret hush money payments to the donor’s mistress who had become pregnant. Cohen initially asked not to divulge the name of the third client, but the judge refused and ordered disclosure. The fact of a lawyer’s representation of a client is not confidential. Mr. Cohen then revealed that his third client was Fox News personality Sean Hannity, one of President Trump’s biggest supporters, who had been railing against the FBI seizures from the minute they took place.

The evidence sought by the search warrant included information related to the now very public payment made by Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just days before the 2016 election and to other “fixes” Cohen had undertaken on Mr. Trump’s behalf to quash damaging information from coming to light before the election. Federal charges of money laundering, illegal election campaign contributions, and others easily come to mind as possible criminal violations that could land Mr. Cohen behind bars and sweep away what remains of the Trump presidency as well. Time will tell.

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.

The Crossroads

Is America Great Again?

Not even close.

We are one year into Making America Great Again and seven years into the Wisconsin Taxpayer Revolt. We know what this looks like and have reached the crossroads. Is this what we want to become?

Do we want to be a society where everybody is out for himself or herself, looking to amass as much wealth as they can at the expense of those less able or fortunate?

Do we want to live on planet with less clean air and water with a dwindling food supply and a climate that grows ever harsher to human existence?

Do we want to live in a society where the elderly, disabled and different are deemed disposable and expendable?

Do we want to live in communities where women are second or third class citizens whose job it is to pleasure men and have their babies?

Do we want to live in a society where those at the top of the chain are automatically deemed more valuable than those in subordinate positions?

Do we want to end our commitment to universal quality public education?

Do we want to return to a system that only allows white male property owners to decide who gets to govern the country?

Do we want a country that is not respected or supported by the international community?

Do we really want one-party rule in the halls of government?

2018 must be the year we turn away from these goals of Republican governance and return our society back to one based upon mutual respect and taking care of each other.

We need a tax code which requires everyone to pay their fair share to support basic human needs for food security, adequate universal healthcare, a secure infrastructure that supports business ventures and safe commerce, a stable defense for a peaceful world.

We need to protect Social Security and Medicare to make sure that seniors and the disabled do not go back to impoverished lives and dying in back bedrooms. We need to protect retirements for those who can no longer work.

We need to protect the world we live on by doing what science demands to clean our air and water and minimize the disruption of climate change. We need to maximize the use of renewable energy sources to stop the use of fossil fuels.

We need to value those who work by providing safe working environments, family supporting wages and benefits, collective bargaining rights and reasonable working conditions. Family and medical leave policies must recognize the importance strong families play in productive work.

We need strong public schools that support and educate every child to the best of their individual abilities so they can become productive and intelligent members of our communities. We need to recognize that professional and well-supported teachers are critical to the success of their students and compensate our educators accordingly.

We need to finally recognize and promote the equality of women in the workplace and the rest of society by guaranteeing equal pay for equal work and equal access to opportunity. We need an end to sexual harassment and assault everywhere.

We need to end income inequality and value each member of the community for the contribution they can make. The value of one’s opinions should not depend upon the amount they have in the bank. Everyone should be eligible to and encouraged to vote in fair elections. Election districts must be drawn to encourage competitive elections, not to favor incumbent politicians.

We need to expand protections for America’s natural wild areas and make them accessible for all to see and enjoy. Our National and State Parks are the envy of the world and need to be expanded.

We need a return to respectable diplomacy that respects other countries and their cultures and does not seek to impose American values by might.

2018 is the year we can restore the democracy to end the one party rule that favors the few over the many, but only if you vote. Those who stay home elect tyrants and dictators.

Waring R. Fincke is a retired attorney who serves as a guardian for the elderly and disabled.