Trying to Pull a "Gableman" on Fallone

Remember the well documented lies and sleazy tactics that Michael Gableman used against incumbent Justice Louis Butler in 2008?  Apparently some right wingers are trying once again to pull a "Gableman" but this time they are doing it to Supreme Court candidate Ed Fallone.

They tried to make Justice Butler, the state's first African American on the high court, own all of the horrible crimes of a former African American client. Apparently they are now trying to use the misdeeds of the former leader of the Latino Community Center against Fallone. Incidentally Fallone would be the state's first Latino justice on the high court if he is elected next month.

So it is a different race, with different circumstances but it appears that some of the same sleazy tactics are being employed now that were used back then.

The story in short: A former gang leader emerged from prison and by all early accounts tried to reform both himself and his community on Milwaukee's near south side.  In 1999 he created an LLC which eventually became the Latino Community Center.  It was initially so effective at reaching out to the youth of the area that he gained a very impressive amount of community support.  He also gained a very prominent list of board members including Ed Fallone.  Unfortunately the founder of that community center eventually lost his way and acted recklessly in many ways and with tragic consequences.

Apparently the right wing special interests in Wisconsin have been running a sleazy radio ad trying to make Ed Fallone own the tragic decisions of this former community center founder.  If you were to believe their opportunistic attacks you would think that Fallone himself was a criminal gang leader and perhaps that is the real point of the ad in the first place. However, at the time everyone knew about the background of the center's founder but they also believed in and thought that they were witnessing an amazing story in redemption. Who could possibly blame them or be against that?

So I'm assuming that the sleazy attacks stem from the misinformed idea that Fallone should have somehow earlier divined the founder's horrible personal decisions that came about in 2001.  But to think that you have to totally ignore the actual timeline of events along with a bit of reality.

From all accounts it wasn't until 2001 that the founder started going back in the wrong direction in his personal life.  One of those bad decisions included him developing an inappropriate personal relationship with a worker at the center. That worker ended up pregnant with twins and things went very quickly and tragically downhill from there.  On October 29, 2001 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story detailing all of these horrible things and two days later the Latino Community Center board accepted the founders resignation.

So apparently critics are suggesting that 2 days was too long to fire the founder or they are upset that Fallone and the other board members failed to properly employ ESP or some other unconventional method to learn about his personal life and private activities. Even if they believe the latter it should be noted that most of the downhill slide of this situation happened very quickly over the course of months.  However I find both of the above options ridiculous and that is why I am convinced that the motivation isn't really so complicated.

The right wing is simply trying to misuse another horrible tragedy to pull a "Gableman" but this time they are trying to pull it on Ed Fallone.

More Prosser Name Calling Making Headlines

At last night's supreme court debate David Prosser started calling people names again. This time he accused his opponent JoAnne Kloppenburg of being an "ideologue". Kloppenburg has made no statement that I have seen during this entire campaign that would even come close to fitting Prosser's over-the-top description. In fact it seems that Prosser is basing his name calling on little more than the fact that she interned for Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson some 25 years ago (remember the names that he called her). Even though his angry accusations have so little basis, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel included it in their (online story) headline.

If Prosser wants to look 25 years back to decide who is and who isn't an "ideologue" then perhaps he better look at his own record. Because 25 years ago Prosser was a partisan Republican state legislator. He wasn't just a Republican legislator but one of the leaders of the partisan bunch. Now I don't know what creative definition of "ideologue" Prosser was using last night but the normal definition seems to fit his activities 25 years ago quite perfectly.

Actually, when it comes to David Prosser being an ideoloque we don't have to go back very far at all. Here are just some of the recent examples:

• David Prosser's campaign is the one that said very early that he would serve as a "complement" to the rabidly right wing governor and state legislature.



• David Prosser is the candidate that followed up that stunning pledge by going to every partisan Republican event that he could find.



• It was David Prosser's campaign that said this current race was about right wing ideology "...and nothing more".



• It was David Prosser that took part in a tea party radio interview telling them that people could "read between the lines" about how he would rule on any abortion related cases.
  

In addition to having TEMPERament issues, it seems that David Prosser also suffers from a serious case of pot-kettle syndrome.

ht: Picture from One Wisconsin Now

Prosser: This is about ideology "and nothing more"

As soon as Justice David Prosser launched his campaign for the state Supreme Court it seemed that he put an immediate premium on partisanship. Remember his promise that he would serve as a "complement" to the new right wing legislature and governor? In addition he has kept busy running around to Republican organizations. I've already speculated that he may be defaulting back to his partisan days as the former Republican Speaker. Now it seems that we can add another example of Prosser valuing a hard right ideology above all else.

The latest in this pattern comes in the Prosser campaign's response to one of his three opponents for Supreme Court. Specifically it was Joel Winnig's comments about the dishonest "Justice" Michael Gableman. Among other comments, Winnig described Gableman as a "cancer" and that he should be removed from office. The Prosser campaign responded to Winnig's comments saying the following (as reported by Wispolitics in an email to their subscribers, the 2/9/11 PM Update):

“This election is about a 4-3 commonsense conservative majority vs. a 3-4 liberal majority, and nothing more.”

Again the Prosser campaign boils this race down to a dedication to a rigid right wing ideology. Call me crazy but that seems so inappropriate. How about this race being about the most qualified person that will approach each case without a bias of any kind and judge them individually based on the facts and the law? Apparently we can just throw those silly notions out the window because the only thing that matters to the Prosser campaign is ideological loyalty "and nothing more."

See also: IT's "Justice Prosser thinks Joel Winnig is smoking dope"

Is the GOP Still Opposed to Filibustering Judicial Nominees?

During the Bush Administration, Republican leaders in Congress repeatedly voiced their contempt for the filibustering of his judicial nominees. They went as far as to say that it was unconstitutional. Now that President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, how quickly do you think that they will forget that rhetoric? Thanks to Media Matters, we have the video reminding them of their own arguments.

Here is just one of those:

Hostile Koschnick Wants it Both Ways

Over the weekend, I just commented that Randy Koschnick must feel desperate because he seems to be throwing everything against the wall to see if anything will stick. The item that I focused on in the blog posting on Saturday was him trotting out the favorite right-wing boogie man – gay people. I barely got the scare-by-gay blog posting up and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel dutifully reported their latest in what has become a daily series of running Koschnick talking points as headlines. In the Sunday piece Walters actually runs a headline that is referring to some Koschnick comment from a prior week. And that is new now because…you may have been on vacation when it was first said?

In any case, the week late reporting reveals yet another hot button right-wing favorite that Koschnick is tossing against the wall – someone's gonna take your guns! I'm not sure what is worse on the far right, the paranoia about gay people or the paranoia that someone is coming to take away your hunting rifle. The Koschnick argument in Sunday's story attacked the Chief because he felt that she should have helped rewrite the concealed carry law. Aside from getting nearly all of the facts wrong, isn't this the opposite of what Koschnick has been saying this whole time? Hasn't he been bemoaning the idea of what he calls "legislating from the bench"? How doesn't the rewriting of this law qualify as "legislating" if we are using his own erroneous definition?

This is not just another example of Randy Koschnick throwing things against the wall, but it is also an example of his repeated double standards. Here are just a few of the other examples that we have endured:

1. Accusing the Chief of being "hostile to law enforcement" for taking on some of the most complex legal issues, when as a defense attorney he made some legal arguments himself that would qualify as "hostile" using his own absurd definition.
   
2. Refusing to sign a third party "clean campaign pledge" but instead creating his own and then complaining that his opponent wouldn't sign it. Naturally he went on to break even his own pledge.
   
3. Complaining about contributions to his opponent from attorneys, even though it only represented 3 percent of the total, while he also received contributions from attorneys representing 13 percent of his 1999 campaign total.
   
4. Saying that he supports free speech even if it is "messy" and then trying to get a third party ad pulled off the air because he disagrees with it.
   

A few things are very clear about Randy Koschnick as the campaign comes to an end…he is increasingly hostile, he seems increasingly desperate, and he is increasingly invoking double standards.

Koschnick Channels His Inner Drama Queen

Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick must be really desperate as Election Day is now imminent. It seems that he is trying to throw just about everything against the wall, just to see if it will work. What good right wing extremist would go through an entire election cycle without trotting out their favorite boogie man, "the gays." Perhaps Koschnick is preparing to move to Iowa and run for their state Supreme Court since he is now attacking them for protecting the equal rights of gay people in that state.

Koschnick, not being satisfied with name calling distinguished jurists in Wisconsin, decided to start calling names of the Iowa justices that ruled for equal rights under the law. He said Friday that this gay marriage decision was the result of "activist" judges. Naturally he didn't bother to mention that this decision was unanimous and that several of the justices on Iowa's high court are "conservative" which is how he describes himself. Actually it is Koschnick's uninformed reaction that proves to be "activist" as he clearly would push away and ignore the constitution in an effort to reaffirm his own personal beliefs and prejudices.

In his comments Koschnick fell back on the same old shtick, saying that these sorts of issues should be decided by the legislature. Frankly it is quite bizarre that Koschnick doesn't know that there are three co-equal branches of government, including the judicial. In the real world, there is no such thing as a super legislature as Koschnick appears to be suggesting. The judicial branch actually has an important role and without it we never would have had decisions protecting things like freedom of religion, the right to privacy and the right to get an education anywhere regardless of color. Koschnick must believe these were terribly "activist" decisions, if he is going to be consistent.

Clearly the Iowa Supreme Court saw Koschnick's kind of bumper sticker attack coming when in their very well reasoned decision they commented:

This court, consistent with its role to interpret the law and resolve disputes, now has the responsibility to determine if the law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution.

Yeah, because that is their job. Unfortunately for the Koschnick's of the world, they had to state the obvious.

"Two Strikes"

"Two Strikes" from Chief Justice Abrahamson on Vimeo.

The Many Faces of Randy Koschnick

We have already seen many examples of there being several versions of Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick. On crime and punishment we have seen Attorney Koschnick and Candidate Koschnick who seem to hold very different views. We have seen Randy Koschnick talking about running a "clean campaign" only to witness a constant practice of low-road rhetoric. Now we are being introduced to an entirely different set of Koschnicks. One that believes in free speech even if it is "messy" and the other that wants to silence speech that he doesn't like.

Even though his entire campaign has been practicing a constant smear of the Chief Justice of our state's high court, he now has the audacity to complain about an ad by a third party group. Actually, his own boilerplate list of partisan talking points practically wrote the ad itself. Even so, he is now trying to get Television stations to pull the third party ad, simply because he does not agree with it. That is very different from the free speech loving Randy Koschnick that we saw as recently as March 19 in a La Crosse debate appearance. In that debate he was asked about public financing of campaigns and he gave the following answer:

I have no problem with public financing being made available so that viable candidates can run. However, if there's any restriction (inaudible) of such a plan on free speech
rights, I would be against that strongly. We cannot restrict the rights of individuals and groups to voice their opinions about candidates. Does it get messy once in a while when we have a democratic process? Yes. Does the First Amendment create some messy situations? Yes. Do we tolerate speech
that many of us find offensive? Yes.

But I don't think that the answer to concerns about third-party groups being involved in campaigns is to try to suppress the free speech rights of individuals and groups. I think the answer to the problem of offensive or troublesome speech is more speech. And so if somebody says something that's
not true or inaccurate, I think the answer, rather than trying to suppress that speech, is to allow the candidates and others to come out with a response and put the truth out there and let the public decide. So to the extent that public financing proposals would restrict free speech as many of them do, I don't agree with them. If it's public financing with no strings attached, it's a wonderful option.

Lofty rhetoric but as soon as he was given his first chance to practice it, he decided to flush the constitutionally correct argument in exchange for the more politically convenient one. If he really meant what he said in that debate, then he should stop trying to "suppress that speech" and "come out with a response" to it (to borrow his own words). Why doesn't he just get out there and finally show us who he (really) is? It will be interesting to see which Koschnick ends up winning this internal argument. Will it be the one that supports free speech or the one that wants to silence it?

“101 Ways to Get Rejected”

After going through a long series of difficult events, many people turn to writing because it can be rather therapeutic. With the string of rejections that Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick has been experiencing lately, I suggest that he start putting a pen to paper soon. Here is just a sampling of what he has endured:

90 percent of the Milwaukee Bar Association declared the Chief Justice qualified, while only 25 percent described Koschnick as such. The spin after that tally seemed to be that they just don't know him well enough.

Enter the majority of Jefferson County Judges, that I assume know Koschnick very well. Two of the three judges endorsed the Chief Justice, with one enthusiastically editorializing about it in local papers. Along with the nonpartisan judges, some 60 plus prominent officials and residents in Jefferson County picked the Chief Justice over Koschnick. Since the Koschnick Campaign couldn't say that they didn't know him, they turned to saying that these were all Democrats. Contrary to that argument, one of the Abrahamson supporters is a former Republican legislator and at least one supported Koschnick back in 1999.

After having heard from Koschnick for over a month since the Milwaukee Bar Association survey, Dane County Lawyers still overwhelmingly declared the Chief Justice qualified. The actual number was again close to 90 percent whereas those describing Koschnick as qualified was an embarrassing 9 percent. The suggested talking point after that, was the same tired "liberal Madison" excuse.

Well surly a similar survey of Waukesha County lawyers would correct this "partisan" trend right? After all, Waukesha is known as the most Republican/conservative county in the state right? So what were the results of Waukesha County Lawyers? Out of the 176 lawyers, 127 rated the Chief Justice as highly qualified compared to only 33 that described Koschnick in the same way. To make it even worse, more of these Waukesha County lawyers described him as not qualified (43).

Unfortunately Koschnick is not even able to fall back on endorsements. Just look at how lopsided some of those are:

Police Chiefs

114 for Abrahamson and 24 for Koschnick

Sheriffs

33 for Abrahamson and 22 for Koschnick

Law Enforcement Organizations

7 for Abrahamson and 2 for Koschnick

District Attorneys

40 for Abrahamson and 12 for Koschnick

And now for the really embarrassing one, Judges

262 for Abrahamson and only 7 for Koschnick

If he does decide to put pen to paper about the last few months, I'd like to offer a possible title: "101 Ways to Get Rejected" by Randy Koschnick.

The People that Know Koschnick Best are Backing the Chief

John Nichols is reporting that many prominent people in Jefferson County are getting behind Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson rather than their own Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick. That group of people includes prominent police chiefs, lawyers, a former Republican legislator and even two of the three other judges that serve with Koschnick. The full list that was released yesterday totals 65 prominent residents of Jefferson County. It seems pretty clear that those who know Koschnick the best, are backing the Chief.

Included with the release, the retiring 18 year veteran on the Jefferson bench, Judge John Ullsvik, made several very clear points as to why he was endorsing Abrahamson over Koschnick. His comments were originally sent to the local papers in Jefferson County and stated some of the following reasons for his endorsement:

• The Chief Justice is "recognized for her impartiality, intellect, knowledge of the law, leadership, courage and hard work."
  
• Koschnick's "primary concern has been how fast cases can be finished" but he has a "below-average affirmation rate (74%) when his decisions are appealed."
  
• In his 10 years as a judge, "he has rarely written a decision, which is an important skill for a Supreme Court Justice."
  
• He also suggests that Koschnick is lacking in "collegiality and humility" which are "also important for such a position."
  

It should really not be a huge surprise that a majority of Koschnick's fellow Jefferson County judges are not backing him. It was only a short time ago that the Capital Times reported on all of the internal strife that happened in the Jefferson County courthouse on Koschnick's watch. The real surprise is that these Jefferson County judges are joined with many other prominent lawyers, law enforcement officials and others.

In a desperate attempt to spin his way out of this troubling development, the Koschnick Campaign put out a late and wandering press release yesterday. While listing many of his absurd talking points, which are totally unrelated to this issue, Koschnick tries to explain away these local endorsements claiming that these people are Jefferson County Democrats. Upon even just a partial examination, this argument doesn't hold water. First and foremost, one of the most prominent people on the list is former Republican legislator. Furthermore, Jefferson County Judges Ullsvik and Erwin hold nonpartisan offices, don't appear to be affiliated with partisan politics and don't appear to have given any political contributions to anyone of any party (check WDC database). Even more interesting is the fact that at least one of the people on the list is a local lawyer that originally supported Koschnick when he first ran for Judge in 1999. Apparently this lawyer and the other Jefferson County folks know Randy Koschnick very well and they also know that he does not belong on the high court.

Was Attorney Koschnick “Hostile to Law Enforcement”?

Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick continues to go down a low and unfortunate road in his quest to sit on the high court. He has succumbed to the worst elements of recent judicial races by using absurd descriptions such as "pro-criminal" when talking about complex matters of law. I'm not sure if it is out of desperation or a win-at-all-costs attitude, but Judge Koschnick has finally gone over the edge with these types of juvenile accusations. After Wednesday's debate, he put out a press release saying that his opponent showed a "hostility" towards law enforcement. We already know that Koschnick is prone to holding his opponent to a completely different standard than the one that he requires of himself. His irresponsible rhetoric forces me to ask the question, would Candidate Koschnick also say that Attorney Koschnick was "hostile" toward law enforcement?

As we all know, Randy Koschnick served as a public defender for 14 years before becoming a Jefferson County Judge. It is a necessary and noble profession and I have had the honor of working for many defense attorneys and know much about their good work, often in difficult circumstances. But this isn't about me, it's about Candidate Koschnick and the progressively absurd charges that he is trying to level for political gain. He has accused the Chief Justice of our state's highest court of being "hostile" to law enforcement because he disagrees with very specific rulings on some of the most complex matters of law. If Candidate Koschnick is willing to describe this as "hostility toward law enforcement" then what would he say about the many legal arguments that have been made by Attorney Koschnick over the years? Would he label his former self the same unfortunate way?

In a criminal defense career of 14 years there are many examples that could be used, but in this instance it is easier to use examples from his one famous case - Ted Oswald. I would say that Attorney Koschnick was just doing his best to represent his client at the time, but again, this is not about me, it is about what Candidate Koschnick would say about making some of these legal arguments. Would he hold himself to the same absurd standard that he has now set? Consider the following:

• Attorney Koschnick filed a motion and argued to suppress mounds of evidence that he argued was illegally seized by law enforcement. Essentially he was accusing law enforcement of repeatedly and purposefully breaking the law when they searched the Oswald home and vehicles on the property. Would Candidate Koschnick call this legal argument "hostile to law enforcement"?
  
• Attorney Koschnick filed a motion and argued to suppress the statements of Ted Oswald because he claimed that law enforcement acted inappropriately in the questioning of his client after he had clearly asked for an attorney. Would Candidate Koschnick describe these legal arguments as showing "hostility toward law enforcement"?
  
• Attorney Koschnick filed two different motions and argued to have 15 of the counts against Ted Oswald dismissed. While making these arguments, Attorney Koschnick claimed that the District Attorney's office "overcharged" with some of these counts. He continued by saying that the state had filed charges that "…are much more serious than is warranted." In other examples Attorney Koschnick made a probable cause argument in asking that the counts against Ted Oswald be dismissed. Would Candidate Koschnick call these legal arguments "hostile to law enforcement"?
  
• Perhaps the most ironic part was when Attorney Koschnick references a footnote in an opinion by then-Justice Abrahamson while making his argument to dismiss counts. Particularly interesting was the point at which the judge essentially accused this "strict constructionist" of basically reading into Justice Abrahamson's meaning. After making so many false accusations against the Chief Justice, would Candidate Koschnick allow such (mis)use of her rulings?
  
• While arguing to dismiss the numerous counts of Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide, that resulted from the Oswald's shootout with law enforcement, Attorney Koschnick made a particularly odd argument. Even though one Police Captain had already been killed, Koschnick essentially argued that because the Oswalds were merely shooting in the general direction of the officers (page marked 71)that didn't mean that the Oswalds intended to kill them. He goes on to argue that if that was their intention the Oswalds would have shot, "at the officer's upper body areas where one would expect a person who was intending to kill another person to fire." The State had a very interesting and common sense response to this argument. Again, would Candidate Koschnick call this argument "hostile to law enforcement"?
  

Candidate Koschnick has put himself into a no-win situation by using his absurd "hostile to law enforcement" slogan. If he is concerned about being in any way consistent then he must charge Attorney Koschnick with being "hostile to law enforcement" also. On the other hand, if he rushes to the defense of Attorney Koschnick, then he is guilty of a very clear double standard. It is a terrible situation to find yourself in but alas he is the one that chose to go down this road.

Sandra Day O'Conner Not Fond of "Activist Judge" Label

In fact she is so concerned about such a flawed approach that she has established an online effort to educate the next generation. The site that she has started is Our Courts.org. She appeared on The Daily Show last night. I think that many on the right, that are constantly employing these kinds of absurd attacks, should be the first to take some of the courses that she offers or at least watch her comments.

IndecisionAn Indecision Exclusive!

Sandra Day O'Connor Pt. 1

Funny Political Video
Political Games

Joe Biden Jokes
Barack Obama Jokes

So what have you been complaining about?

I try to catch Mike Gousha’s Up Front program every Sunday. In my opinion, it is the best Wisconsin-based political program on television. Yesterday Gousha interviewed Randy Koschnick regarding his run for state Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the interview brought out more questions for me than it answered.

Although Koschnick has made 3 percent of his opponent's campaign contributions a major plank of his campaign, he admitted on the show that there was nothing illegal about them. This did not surprise me because even he could not be so absurd as to make such a claim. I did, however, expect him to make some lame ethics argument based on the judicial code. When asked that specific question, to my surprise, Koschnick admitted that this nonissue that he has been hyping for weeks, was not even an ethical violation. So the obvious follow up question is, “So exactly what have you been complaining about for the last several weeks?”

As much as I like Mike Gousha and his program, I was surprised that he didn’t follow up on such an obvious point. I was also disappointed that he, like most others in the traditional media, did not question Koschnick about his own campaign donations. Since I genuinely like Gousha and his program, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was simply an issue of time and the fact that he tries to pack almost too much substance into a mere 30 minutes. If there is a case to be made for a full hour of Up Front, the Koschnick interview on Sunday could serve as Exhibit A.

Koschnick Double Talk and the AWOL Media

Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on multiple issues. I’m not sure which is worse, that a candidate for the high court would repeatedly do this or that the traditional media would just run his talking points without questioning him on any of them.

Koschnick has made the main point of his entire candidacy a manufactured controversy over campaign donations to his opponent that represent only 3 percent of the total raised. He does this even though when he was running for judge in 1999, he accepted cash from lawyers that went on to have cases before him. Those donations to Koschnick represented about 40 percent of the total that he raised at that time. Unfortunately no one in the traditional media has asked him to square this circle so he just keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Koschnick apparently can’t wait to repeatedly talk about “the bloody shirt” in the Knapp case, even though he himself threw out a pair of bloody shoes in the case. As many times as he has talked about this case, he has never explained why the defendant’s rights mattered with one piece of evidence and not the other. But then again, as far as I can tell, he has never been asked that question.

Koschnick talked in the last debate about not being partisan and repeatedly has accused his opponent of compromising her impartiality. He makes these repeated comments while at the same time appearing at just about every Republican event in the state. To their credit, at least the Wausau Daily Herald pointed out the double standard.

While Koschnick has been talking about clean campaign pledges, he has authorized fundraising letters that make the same old nasty attacks that we have come to expect. Reading the letter, one would think that his opponent was freeing all the criminals in the state and planning some sort of coup in Madison. It appeals only to the most paranoid on the right, yet he faces no accountability for it. The letter also takes a not so subtle swipe at the Chief Justice’s age, which I find particularly offensive. Is this what he means by a "clean campaign"? Perhaps someone should ask him to provide us with his definition.

Aside from the lead paragraph in the Wausau Daily Herald, the state’s media has largely given Koschnick a pass in all of these areas. Many times, they have gone well beyond just giving him a pass. At times they have printed his list of talking points and then acted as if that was legitimate news. Before April I certainly hope that more people start noticing the Koschnick double talk. You can’t act all sanctimonious about the state of our judicial elections and then do absolutely nothing to challenge this kind of behavior.

Questionable Communications = Questionable Judgment

In recent weeks we have learned much more about Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick. First The Lost Albatross reported that he had used his courthouse desk phone to call extremist right wing groups like Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) and the rabidly anti-gay Wisconsin Family Council. That blog also revealed that he used his state email to contact WRTL, who eventually endorsed him in his run for the state Supreme Court. This week the Capital Times took an even deeper look at Koschnick, while also confirming much of The Lost Albatross report. These recent developments and Koschnick’s apparent extremist views have rightfully caused people to question his judgment. One thing that has not been explored as much has been whether he broke any rules in using official communications to contact people and groups that are clearly now the very core of his campaign’s support.

After all of the drama in Wisconsin regarding campaigning on state time with state resources, one would think that a public official would stay as far away from any such perception as possible. If I were a public official and planned on running a campaign for higher office, I would go out of my way to avoid any appearance of using taxpayer funded time and resources to promote that effort. Apparently judge Koschnick does not share those standards.

As has already been reported, leading up to his announcement to run for the state Supreme Court he used his official courthouse phone to call several organizations that have been politically active in our state. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) regularly endorses the most right wing candidates for example. So just as he is planning his campaign for state Supreme Court, Judge Koschnick just happens to find a reason to repeatedly call his local WRTL contact from his official phone? Not only did Judge Koschnick use his official phone to call this political ally but he also used his state email to talk about how he would be introduced during one of their upcoming events. The WRTL contact suggests an intro including the fact that he is going to be running for state Supreme Court. Again, using his state email, Koschnick signs off on the proposed intro that some might consider a promotion of his upcoming campaign. As we now know, WRTL ended up officially endorsing Koschnick.

As if the above example isn’t enough, Koschnick again shows that he is particularly tone deaf when he signs up to receive Google Alerts for “Koschnick Supreme” to his state email account. Exactly how is this NOT campaign related? How is this an appropriate use of taxpayer funded time and resources?

At the very least Koschnick's use of these resources and taxpayer funded time is questionable. Surly any ethics expert would suggest that his behavior enters a gray area that should be avoided. Given the many ethics problems that have been raised over the last several cycles, do we really want someone added to the high court that is so comfortable dancing right up to the ethical line? The bottom line is that these communications are at least questionable and apparently so is Koschnick’s judgment.

Koschnick Not Too Busy For the Extreme

During his first debate with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick used an unusual strategy. Responding to a listing of cases where the court of appeals determined that he overstepped his authority and ignored statutes, he responded saying that he was just too darn busy to worry about using “magic words” and that is why he was reversed in those cases. When he said that he was too busy, who knew it was because he was chatting it up with some of the most extreme right wingers in the state?

The Lost Albatross blog was the first to report that Jefferson County phone records show that Judge Koschnick used his courthouse desk phone to call the Wisconsin Family Council. This is the same organization that led the charge to enshrine discrimination against gay Wisconsinites into our state constitution. The group is led by the wildly extreme Julaine Appling who just last year was demanding the prosecution of gay couples that got married in San Francisco and then came back home to Wisconsin. She also is well known for her comment that society has been very tolerant to gay couples by “allowing them to live wherever they choose.” Was Koschnick providing his legal analysis on such subjects to this group? Was he seeking the support/advice of the 501(c)(3) group while planning his run for state Supreme Court? Whatever the answers, someone in the media should be asking the questions.

Apparently the Wisconsin Family Council was not the only right wing group that Koschnick was calling from his courthouse phone. The Lost Albatross also reported that he had also placed a phone call and exchanged emails with the local contact for Wisconsin Right to Life. Incidentally, that group just endorsed his candidacy. What were these communications about and was it appropriate to use an official phone and a state email to have them? Isn’t he “too busy” to conduct such communications on the taxpayer’s dime?

Not only did Judge Koschnick say that he was “too busy for magic words” but he has also been very critical about one of his fellow judge’s use of time at the Jefferson County Courthouse. Koschnick attacked one fellow judge in an email complaining that the judge started hearing cases 30 minutes too late. It seems a little disingenuous when we now know that he may have spent more time than that talking to Appling's group. Even if he really is “too busy” we now know that Judge Koschnick is definitely not “too busy” to consult with some of the most extreme elements in Wisconsin.

Media Fumbling Facts for Koschnick

After watching the first debate between Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick, I was shocked at how most of the reports in the media simply restated Koschnick’s empty talking points and illegitimate attacks. With all of their “outrage” over the nastiness of the last race, one would think that the media would actually do their job – report the facts. They can complain about nasty campaigning all that they want but if they don’t hold candidates accountable, they themselves are part of the problem.

During the debate Koschnick repeatedly threw around the old meaningless “activist” label. The press seemed to take his name calling and run with it, printing it in most of their stories about the debate. Yet, given his repeated use of the word “activist” none of the reporters saw fit to mention one of the most compelling moments in the entire debate. The Chief Justice started reading off several cases where Judge Koschnick had been reversed by the court of appeals. There seemed to be a common theme from the higher court, repeatedly saying that Koschnick exceeded his authority and ruled in ways that ignored statutes. If there is a definition of an “activist” judge, some of the appeals courts descriptions could have served as such. Somehow this pot/kettle moment was either totally missed or deliberately ignored by the press.

In addition, the media has known for a while that Koschnick was going to wave around the bloody shirt from the infamous Knapp case. He brought it up repeatedly during the debate and the media reported his comments. What neither he nor the media did bring up was the fact that in the very same case, he himself ruled that a pair of bloody shoes should not be allowed as evidence. The only thing that the media had to do was search their own past reporting of the case and they would have learned about Koschnick’s ruling on the shoes. They didn’t do that and settled with simply carrying his one sided and disingenuous commentary.

In the absence of real reporting and basic fact checking, bloggers quickly began to point out the whole picture about the Knapp case. Only then did the state’s largest paper finally run an online item reporting about Koshnick’s ruling on the bloody shoes. But even after finally reporting the fact, they still could not get the information completely correct, making a very fundamental mistake in its reporting which later had to be corrected.

The idea that no one at this newspaper association debate was familiar enough with the basic facts of the Knapp case, when they knew it was going to be used, is irresponsible. Equally troubling is that reporters simply repeated Koschnick’s name calling without making him answer for his own record. Not only did the media completely abdicate their responsibilities in the reporting of this debate, but they showed a disturbing propensity to completely and totally fumble the facts.

Get Back to Me in April

Wispolitics is reporting that Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce is planning to “sit out” this spring’s race between Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick. Forgive me if I’m not dancing in the streets just yet. It would probably be best to check back in April. Chances are high that this is simply a conservative shell game.

The report says that the big biz lobby, that so tarnished the last two elections for the state Supreme Court, plans to only provide “background” on the two candidates this time around. We will see what they mean soon enough. Will they pay another Federalist Disciple to produce a “white paper” that serves as little more than a conservative hit piece? Will they launch a strategically timed series of press releases for “background only” that end up unfairly attacking another sitting justice? Will that “background” turn into front page stories?

If they really do “sit out” this one, we should pay even closer attention. What will likely happen is that the corporate cash will just go to the many shameless conservative groups that have been perfecting the smear campaign. That could serve as another Christmas for groups like All Children Matter, WIL and others. If the cash flows in that direction, then this new announcement will mean very little. Many of these groups have already shown that they have no problem with ratcheting up the sleaze factor and keeping us from a real and substantive debate. That has also been the corporate lobby's calling card, whether WMC's name is on the TV ad or not.

Back to the future and hoping for the best

While preparing to restart this blog I came across the audio of an interview that I did back in February on Madison's 92.1, The Mic.* I was the guest for the full hour with the very well-informed Lee Rayburn. The show focused on the Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman campaigns for the state Supreme Court, both topics with which I am very familiar.

Listining nearly 10 months after the interview originally aired was actually very insightful. It was fascinating to look back on the facts at that time, and how things have transpired since. At that time, Ziegler had finally admitted to her ethical violations, while Michael Gableman was only beginning to commit his own. While it was clear at that time that Gableman was lying about specific items of fact, he had yet to commit the acts that now have him charged by the Judicial Commission. Ziegler has since both recieved and accepted the punishment of her peers while Gableman continues to cross shameful lines by fighting for his "right" to lie.

Gableman's attack on the Judicial Code will probably be the three ring circus that we fully expect it to be. While that will surely get its share of the headlines, we should also keep an eye on yet another right wing candidate running for the high court next year. After the Ziegler scandal of 2007, most of us hoped for something better in 2008. Unfortunately Gableman refused to learn from her mistakes and was intent on taking them to an entirely new level. Let's hope that Randy Koschnick departs entirely from the right wing pattern that has been set before him. Given some of the people that he has surrounded himself with so far and the playbook that he is already reusing, we have reason to worry. Even with that being said, we can still hope for the best: a civil campaign that focuses on substantive issues and real matters of law.

*If you would like to hear my February 26, 2008 interview with Lee Rayburn, you will find it available in the right column.