Filed under: Wisconsin Politics
I was watching the Badger basketball game Friday night and missed the debate between Butler and Gableman. After watching the re-broadcast of We The People this morning I couldn’t believe what Butler said about the Sheriff’s in Wisconsn. Is he saying the Wisconsin Sheriff’s don’t follow the law?
Judge Gableman asked Justice Butler, ‘After serving on the Supreme Court for more than three years, why is it that over 3/4ths of the Sheriff’s and a majority of the DA’s don’t want to see you returned for a 10 year term?’
“Well, I know why a number of the Sheriff’s have opposed — and you know this as well — it has to do with a collective bargaining decision that the court made last year in Kocken, Sheriff Kocken’s, case up in Green Bay and it has largely to do with this decision.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held it is a matter of following State Law — and you’ve indicated you want to give fair application to the plain meaning of the law — that he was above the law, that as a constitutional officer he did not have to follow the law, he did not have to follow the process that was set forth by the Legislature, in ending or trying to remove a contract that was already in place between the County and a Union that was in place there.
And so, for that reason, a number of the Sheriff’s were upset because the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that if Presidents of the United States have to abide by the law, if Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have to abide by the law, then so do Sheriff’s. And that was, in large part, a reason why they are not supporting me.
As far as the DA’s are concerned it has to do with the misleading info that was mailed to the DA’s as this race started and you know what that information is.”
Justice Butler, March 28th, 2008, “We the People” debate
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Powered by FireStats
What about this exchange from the debate? Did he answer the question, or did he circle back around to his memorized talking points?
Q: Kathy Chung of Milwaukee - I was a public defender in Milwaukee for seven years. I represented indigent criminal defendants ethically and zealously. I have moved the court successfully (and unsuccessfully) to suppress evidence against my clients. I have won acquitals (and received convictions) at jury trials. Overall, I had a reputation as a hard worker, and ethical lawyer. Can I be criticized legitimately for doing my job well for my clients? If no, how can you condone the ads against Justice Butler? If yes, how can defense lawyers, or any lawyers do their job ethically, and not be subject to attack from, for example, a supreme court candidate? Thank you, Kathleen Chung
A: Michael Gableman - Criminal defense attorneys are a very important part of our judicial system. The fact is that elections are about choices and there are few more important choices than the election that will occur next Tuesday, April 1st. My opponent and I have very different backgrounds. I was a long-time prosecutor who worked very hard to seek justice for victims and hold offenders accountable. My opponent was a long-time criminal defense attorney. Each voter may use this information to whatever extent they may find useful, but the fact of our different experiences serves as a sharp contrast between my opponent and me. I believe that the voters have a right to know this information and to use it in the manner they view most helpful when deciding who to vote for.
John Foust 03.31.08 @ 10:48 am