14 thoughts on “Judge responsible for Voter ID injunction was a Tommy Thompson (R) appointee

  1. Signing a recall petition is essence identical to voting. Claiming that it’s unethical for the judge not to have disclosed that he signed a recall petition is the same is saying that judges have an ethical duty to disclose how they’ve voted in previous elections if they’re assigned a case involving a political or partisan issue.

  2. My head’s going to ‘splode the next time a reporter uncritically passes along the “conflict of interest” line. It’s difficult to describe how stratospherically stupid it is – especially the GOP claim that the judge was “advancing his and his wife’s private interest” by ruling in a voter ID case after signing the recall petition.

    Even if one thinks that maybe, just maybe, Flanagan should’ve recused himself, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has made the point dead solid moot. In 2010, protecting their flank from pending ethics complaints, the conservative justices amended the Judicial Code of Conduct. Under the changes, a judge cannot be disqualified for having accepted campaign contributions from a party at trial because that would violate judges’ First Amendment rights. There is no way in hell a judge is going to be held to account for exercising his electoral franchise.

    The delicious irony is the Court accepted verbatim language drafted by the Wisconsin Realtors’ Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. Comically chock full of errors, it had to be amended and adopted again (http://bit.ly/xSgJ7z).

    Judge Flanagan has nothing to answer for. The WisGOP can choke on its own karma.

    Oh, and by the way, One Wisconsin Now is reporting Judge Mac Davis donated to Walker’s recall campaign before ruling in the GAB petition review case. Pfffft.

    1. I don’t think there was a conflict of interest here.

      I do think people who have attacked Judge Flanagan for being a “liberal judge” should know he was appointed by a Republican. That’s all I’m sayin’.

      Oh, and if AG J.B. Van Hollen wants to investigate judges with potential conflicts of interest, I’d suggest he take a good look at Gableman.

      1. That wasn’t directed at you, sorry. Just venting a day’s frustration on the Internets.

        I haven’t come across one report forwarding the “formal” GOP complaint/press release that puts the conflict of interest charge in context.

        1. Oh, I know, no worries-I was headed out and just wanted to make sure people knew what my post was about. I normally don’t post short blurbs like this. 🙂

  3. A complete waste of time to argue conflict of interest. If it’s a conflict of interest to have signed, then it could be argued it’s a conflict of interest to have not signed (since not signing is exercising your first amendment right as well). If there’s a problem with the judge’s reasoning, then fine, appeal on that. If you can’t find a flaw in reasoning then you have no standing in my mind. Of course the right seems to be in the argue loudly and obstinately stage rather than arguing the law or arguing the truth.

  4. Given that Tommy Thompson detests Scott Walker, and vice versa, this probably does nothing to quell the civil war about to boil over into the open in the Republican Party. Tommy still looks at Walker like a nutjob, abortion-obsessed, smalltime backbencher. Which, alas, is all he should have become. It just kills Tommy to have to pretend to sing Walker’s praises. Fascinating to watch from this side.

    1. Slightly OT,

      Mr Z, is there a right time for the DPW to be tying Walker’s enablers in the state legislature to his wholesale destruction of the Wisconsin most of us have cherished?

      Giving up legislative rule-making authority and everything else from then on. I am predicting at least a few whining that Scooter, “made,” us do it. Is there a plan to get ahead of that. I don’t get responses from the DPW emails, just requests for money.

      PS Don’t take the independent vote for sorryO for granted. It is not going to happen despite untiring work with you and others to oust Walker.

  5. nonquixote brings up a good point, Graeme. When are you going to go after the power-grabs and cronyism that has run rampant in this administration. Even more than the corruption and arrests, this is even more of a damning indictment of Walker’s “leadership”, the fact that WisGOP has degenerated to the point where the only “objective” judges are people that see things their way, and they think everybody else must be out to get them instead of merely FOLLOWING THE RULES AND THE LAW.

    Independents don’t think too deeply about this, but if you bring it into the light, they will. We value competence and decency in Wisconsin, and Walker and the WisGOPs have destroyed both in their 14 month reign of error.

  6. Hello Jake,

    Not meaning to hijack this lengthly post by Ms Mux, but I am certain most independents DO think quite deeply about this, that is why we don’t follow every bit of any party line. I hope I am not mistakenly characterizing the intent of the first sentence of your last paragraph.

    I would not be so presumptive about making any such future blanket statements about independents in the state.

  7. nonquix- I guess I’m taking certain Independents as “bystanders”, who don’t really pay a lot of attention to things but will vote. This is very different than true Independents (who are not necessarily moderates, regardless of what the media tells us) who are very engaged and will vote based on feeling or pragmatism. And you’re right, those people do care about the integrity and competence issues, which is why I think it should be hit hard, as it’s a major Walker failure.

    For example, Walker would never appoint someone with the competence of a Judge Flanagan, and that’s one of the biggest reasons this ain’t your Granparents’ Republican party- loyalty trumps results and competence.

    1. Thanks, agreed that bystanders is a more appropriate term and that there is a difference. I am not always successful but I do attempt to define my terms.

      I do feel that bystanders applies to many more on the left and right who simply tow the party line and don’t ask questions or express their desires, but can chant all the slogans very well, are willing to be sheep, so to speak, is a larger problem there, than with independents.

      As an aside, I don’t think our little example here, of a simple “civil ,” discussion is something that will be used as a learning moment by some of the regular, “con tributors,” here. (smile) Good day.

  8. Honestly who cares in the end it will go to the supreme court and it will be passed there. The only problem is you lefties will be able to cheat on the recall election. Now to Graeme Z. what are you on? Come on man everyone already thinks you’re crazy don’t give them anything else to use on you.

    1. Mike, PLEASE, please, please take a remedial English course.

      AND don’t cheat. (*wink*)

      The truth is that only instances of voter fraud that anyone can point to have come from the Right, Mikey Mike.

      “The only problem is you lefties will be able to cheat on the recall election”, huh, Mike? You have absolutely NO proof of even the slightest inclination on the part of “lefties” to do that, do you, Big M.

      Rant on about such things if you need to in order to rationalize, and to make yourself feel better about, the future demise of Walker, etal before the fact, but it’s not going to change a damn thing. my misguided wingnut brother.

Comments are closed.