Randy Koschnick wants a clean campaign…

really, he does!

The only problem with Judge Koschnick’s “clean campaign” pledge is the fact that his own campaign is not abiding by it, as evidenced by a recent mailing:

The Rule of Law is vanishing quietly as the Office of the Chief Justice transforms the Wisconsin Supreme Court into a haven of judicial activism that sucks the life from our economy and jeopardizes public safety.

The quiet menace of tyranny lurks in the shadows as liberal judges seize power from the people’s legislature. In all of this, one common thread emerges …

The quiet menace of tyranny? Sounds pretty negative to me, but that’s not all the letter says:

On the other hand. Shirley Abrahamson has lost sight of these crucial principles. Instead, she is leading our entire legal system down a destructive path toward her revolutionary dream of a Supreme Court with unchecked power to re-create society in its own image.

So not only does Chief Justice Abrahamson represent the “quiet menace of tyranny,” but she is also leading our entire legal system down a “destructive path toward her revolutionary dream of a Supreme Court with unchecked power.” That all sounds pretty negative to me, which seems to fly directly in the face of Judge Koschnick’s clean campaign pledge. Call me crazy, but saying one thing and doing another seems like the very definition of hypocrisy.


Related Articles

10 thoughts on “Randy Koschnick wants a clean campaign…

  1. again, you need to educate yourself (and readers of this site.)
    stating facts or ideas that are easily verified:
    1. (and this you can look up for yourself) this woman voted TWICE to strike down wisconsin’s sexual predator law saying it was ‘unconstitutional.’
    interesting that MOST OTHER states say that it IS constitutional.

    2. she has voted more than ANY OTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE in favor of criminals (the figure is over 60%.)

    two retired supreme court justices WHO SERVED WITH HER (one a former close friend on the bench) have stated that koschnick is MORE QUALIFIED than shirly abrahamson (this you can easily look up besides finding it on koschnick’s web site.)

    the citizens of wisconsin have been put in ‘harms way’ because of her decisions.
    kinda’ makes dirty politics pale in comparison don’t you think?

  2. takes time to check out the facts.it
    did so.
    please look at her ‘decisions’ either at koschnick’s campaign site or research at supreme court. we did both.
    please, please, educate yourself.
    i realized, once you read her decisions ‘in total’ especially when she was in minority, writing without the ‘story’ is what the ‘other side’ soes, will twist the facts ‘to fit’ but help your readers.
    she’s not the person we thought she is (or was) and that is sad.

  3. louis, have you bothered to look at some of Koschnick’s more questionable decisions? After all, Koschnick had a traffic case of his overturned on appeal. That hardly sounds like the kind of legal mind I want on the state Supreme Court.

  4. again, i am not defending. i’m asking, that those of us who may support, once you look at her decision making and what she has written (of course, many when she was in minority vote/but also review when in the majority) you will see, as many of us are now seeing, she is not what many believe her to be.
    i know this is ‘minor’ example about campaign advertising but listen to her voice over for the most recent campaign ad. if you know her as you claim as some of us do, you hear the voice but where is the new yawk accent that we have come to know and love ? why the (i know, somewhat ridiculous complaint) the ruse?
    that is minor, i know, but it appears that our girl is not what we thought she was.
    and again, that is sad.
    that is why many liberals and others of us who know the law are seeing this koschnick guy as something ‘real’ different and according to leueder of the isthmus paper as the real deal.
    he is not mike gableman/annette ziegler
    he has two campaign people who are NOT of the advisor group of last two elections as shirley states. (that is not a minor thing. that is a dumb statement on shirley’s part.)
    seamus flaherty and tristan cook are young guns and appear, once you dig/research, will find they are NOT of that ‘same old crowd’ as shirley says in debates and saying that, calling someone an activist is just a slur and dirty politics.
    she needs to ’embrace her acitvism’ as he he says he does his.
    personally, having been an activist on a number of activities, i am offended by her calling being one a ‘bad’ thing.
    she says that people ‘don’t know what judicial activism means.
    apparently many people do and randy koschnick is, as others are finding out,
    a good man.
    and yes, i’m aware of the traffic case you reference and again (here comes that educating that i wish you’d do so those of us who read the site can be assured it will remain truth focused) but randy koschnick has heard over 42,000 cases in ten years, been appealed 27 times and ‘overturned’ on just seven of them.
    legal mind you question?
    also, read the wording the appeals use when telling the judge “the why” for the overturning. the words are standard and some ‘writers’ on the web read the words of the decision and think this is some sort of special rebuke for randy koschnick.
    there are reasons why randy koschnick is not justice gableman or justice ziegler.
    and that could be why many who check this man out are finding there is depth there and our shirley is NOT WHAT WE THOUGHT she was.
    and that, for many, is very sad.
    and also a reason for change.
    i, for one, among many want change. just like president obama asked.
    sorry for spelling errors but it’s late.

  5. I’ve no feel for either candidate, but the money that S.A is spending on adds, suggest that she is the one that has big business in her pocket.
    The election is a long way off, and I’m sick of her adds already.

    Everett Kelley

  6. Everett, I’d dispute the notion that S.A. has big business in her pocket; she’s running more ads than Koschnick because she’s raised more money than him. The last time I checked (which was this morning) Koschnick had managed to raise on $50,000 to Abrahamson’s $1 million.

  7. again,
    your facts are wrong. you could look further and FIND (but i’m sure you won’t/can’t or most likely, don’t know how to find the info) but you’ll be able to see when next campaign fund statement is released that it is much more than the amount you say ‘the last time i checked (which was this morning)……’
    is there one honest, accurate blog/writer out there that can write honest and accurate?
    obviously i thought it was you and a few others but apparently that’s not the case…and, that too, is sad.
    do the research. you’ll find the reason wmc is not giving money to randy koschnick is not because they don’t like him–money from individuals is not a problem–but
    wmc got burned in last election.
    review the debates (they are available to look at.)
    randy koschnick is the first person to show the public her past decisions (both in majority and minority) and those decisions are frightening! HE DOES THIS RIGHT TO HER FACE, TO THE PUBLIC.
    she has NEVER been questioned by anyone, has never had anyone challenge her on her record, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, POSTING HER RECORD FOR ALL OF US TO SEE.
    ralph adam fine, earlier opponent, did not list, and the last, rose, also did not.
    so, use research and LOGIC and you’ll come to the same conclusion: she is not what she tries to portray to the public……….


    Louis, are you aware that Koschnick took money for his Circuit Court campaign from attorneys who then appeared before him? Koschnick never recused himself in several cases in which the attorneys involved had donated to his Circuit Court campaign, so he’s hardly in a position to criticize S.A. on that issue.

    Which decisions of Abrahamson’s do you find to be frightening?

  9. zach,
    how can i say/write this so you’ll understand (we’re depending on you, buddy, so you can ‘fight the good fight’ with truth against the other side.)
    koschnick runs for judge seat (three others in primary, two in the big one.)
    now he’s not a judge, he’s a candidate. he’s not a sitting judge. (he takes donations with none more than 200/300 range.
    da wambaugh gives him a donation of 50 bucks. of course now–keep up with me now, zach— he would, IF KOSCHNICK IS ELECTED, have cases–in fact, 90% of ’em— before him. (let’s see, 50 bucks from a da, 200/300 from lawyers, not a judge yet just the candidate versus BEING THE JUDGE (shirley) WHO HAS SPECIFIC CASES BEFORE YOU, HAVING THE OPTION OF GIVE BACK OR RECUSE? THIRTY PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM ATTNYS WITH CASES PENDING BEFORE YOU RIGHT THAT VERY MINUTE?
    da wambaugh in the election crap shoot when koschnick was RUNNNING for judge would have CASES BEFORE HIM if, and at this poiint, it’s only an IF, koschnick gets elected……
    zach, she has over (or had until the ‘big spend’) a MILLION PLUS before we, the people were told of the lawyer pending cases monies. 30plus K seems like a drop in the bucket……………..
    i’ll sign off now, i wish you health, wealth, and getting hold of the bit more to do the leg/heart work so we won’t be disappointed.
    don’t become like ‘them’ and only put up what you think.
    write what ‘you know’—–then check in with your heart to see,
    as my son’s would say “waaasss up….’ (old commercial, i know but still relevant.)

Comments are closed.