Esenberg’s arguments pushes the same tired canard that peace activists simply don’t understand how dangerous the world is.
This argument is very difficult to understand, particularly when one considers that groups like Peace Action were substantially correct about whether Iraq posed a danger to the United States prior to the invasion. In fact, as I’ve noted, it was the peace groups and others against the war, not the administration or its surrogates, that truly understood the situation in Iraq.
In the comments, Esenberg corrects Mathias' misconceptions of self:
Second, peace activists did not understand the situation in Iraq. The official policy of both the Clinton and Bush administrations was that Saddam was a threat and should be removed. The consensus of all intelligence agencies and the weight of the evidence was that he had WMDs. The fact was that he was not in compliance with UN resolutions or the terms of the Gulf War cease fire. The fact was that the containment regime was following apart and both Saddam and the UN had coopted the oil for food program. The fact was that Saddam provided support for terrorist organizations (although there is no evidence that he was involved in 9-11 and the President did not claim he was.)
The response of the peace activists was to demand an end to sanctions.
It is always the interesting question that never gets asked. What would they have done? Worse than nothing, the political left was actually working to undermine what little anti-Iraq coalition cohesion there was prior to the invasion. That one aspect of Iraq's threat capabilities were overstated is missing the entire strategic point. Yet that thin reed is what the Left clings to in an effort to discredit what is trying to be done in Iraq.
The great irony is that we may achieve military and political success just in time to make a President Obama's timetable for withdrawal possible. You know, after he tweaks it a bit.
Rick Esenberg, Marquette Professor and a favorite legal mind, took a moment in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel yesterday to look at the pitfalls of not electing judges.
Some scholars argue that appointed judges are more likely to adopt expansive notions of the role of the judiciary. Judges who need not answer to the voters may be more likely to adopt approaches to the law that expand the discretion and authority of the judges to pursue their own policy goals.
The poster case for this approach is, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps almost all abortions ought to be legal. But more than one legal academic has driven herself to the brink of insanity trying to find a constitutional mandate for that view that doesn't leave judges free to create whatever rights they want.
Appointment may serve impartiality, but at the expense of accountability. This lack of accountability - if it contributes to an "imperial" judiciary - is just as problematic as electoral threats to impartiality, threatening to impinge upon the prerogatives of the executive and legislative branches.
And it attracts political attention. When judges believe that they can read the law in light of their political predilections, it is only natural to expect that people will come to care passionately about the ideologies of judges.
This is, in large part, responsible for the way in which battles over the confirmation of judges have turned into little Armageddons. Appointment doesn't drive out politics; it just moves it from the campaign trail to the hearing room and, of course, the back room.
Although appointment for life may eliminate political concerns once a judge assumes the bench (at least if the judge doesn't aspire to higher office), that impartiality comes at the price of a lack of accountability. Nor is greater impartiality ensured. More than one commentator has remarked upon the tendency of appointed judges to migrate toward approaches favored by what Justice Antonin Scalia called the "law profession culture."
My question to those that favor the idea of appointing judges, do you really hate Wisconsin voters that much?
Does it disturb anyone that a member of the political left is poking around in his personal business hoping to smear him?
I know that one reader of this blog has contacted the Milwaukee Federalists to ask them to comment of the fact that I was being "paid to comment on issues in the Supreme Court race." That's not really accurate. First, my relationship on this is with the national office, not the Milwaukee Chapter and, second, what I have been or will be paid for is to write this white paper and last years.
Anyone do any investigations of me lately? I'm dying to know what you found out.
Owen Robinson is already making out his living will. Rick Esenberg already has dibs on the "Owen Robinson Chair" on Sunday Insight. I get to sit with folkbum on channel 4 on election night looking for bloggers that aren't out at election victory parties. Two years and the boys are still unsuccessful. Patrick at Badger Blogger gets to play "Guess that location" although I'm told he's changing it to different crack houses around Milwaukee.
For a fitting send-off, we're to gather 21 bloggers to each do a one-word post.
I've been reluctant to comment on the Gableman vs. Butler race for state supreme court for a number of reasons, but mostly because I have yet to see an ad on TV. It may shock you, but I rarely watch regular broadcast stations and the local news anymore. There are some nights I don't even turn the TV on.
Look, any ad that has an African American criminal in it is going to be attacked as racist. That African Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime gets lost in the debate, even as those on the Left complain about the numbers of African Americans in prisons. The Gableman campaign cherry-picked a terrible crime, child molestation, which is in the news constantly stoking the fears of middle class voters regardless of race. There's a reason communities all over the state are trying to figure out how to drive child molestors out of town or back to prison, and it's not because they don't like black people.
My favorite complaint is that they featured Justice Butler's face in the ad, reminding voters he is an African American. The best is Brew City Brawler:
The Brawler doesn't want to say Gableman is playing the race card -- but why does the ad keep Butler's face on the screen longer than Mitchell's? And why are two scary black guys on the screen longer than pink Mike Gableman?
Given the color scheme used for the Butler picture, I thought he looked more like Reince Priebus than Clarence Thomas. The Gableman campaign is going to have to do a better job reminding voters Butler is an African American, as if that's a disqualifier for the State Supreme Court.
For this ad to be racist, Gableman's critics would have to have a lower opinion of the voters than Barack Obama did when he won Wisconsin. Someone should remind the political Left that we're not the residents of Rockridge from Blazing Saddles. And if the Butler campaign is uncomfortable with his face appearing in an opponent's attack ads, African American leaders in the community might want to ask the first African American State Supreme Court Justice why he wants to hide his racial origin.
Now is the ad fair?
I think it's fair to remind the voters that Butler was a public defender. Here's an ugly little secret. People don't like defense lawyers unless they need one. Then they're thanking whatever deity is at hand. Now, I like defense lawyers. I like all lawyers unless they're sitting on committees trying to control an election or, even worse, sitting on an election board. But I'm the exception. Most people root for the prosecution. Why do you think Law and Order is so popular? Do you think it would still be so popular if the public defenders ran circles around Arthur Branch?
If being a public defender was popular with the public, there would be more of them on the public payroll and they would be paid more.
I even think it's fair to run an ad that reminds the voters what kind of people the public defender defended as part of his career path. Heck, if I were Darrin Schmitz (Gableman's campaign manager), I'd pull out the whole portfolio and ask at what point did Butler no longer want to be a public defender. After this murderer? After this rapist?
If you don't like it, don't choose becoming a public defender as a career path.
On the other hand, I think the ad completely crosses the line when it says Butler is responsible for the criminal getting out of jail and re-offending after he served his sentence. The criminal served his sentence and then he was released. If the Gableman campaign is so concerned about the sentence this criminal received, don't blame the defense attorney, blame the judge. Find someone to run against the judge involved in the case.
The verdict: the ad is deliberately misleading, but not racist.
WUWM-FM, a public radio station for those of you who never leave the AM dial anymore, has been featuring a different blogger every day on "Lake Effect". Monday: Jay Bullock Tuesday: Rick Esenberg Wednesday: Mike Mathias Thursday: Gretchen Schuldt And today, Jessica McBride. You can almost hear the local liberals screaming about Jessica invading their turf. You can listen live at 10:00 AM or at 11:00 PM, or they'll post the podcast.
Kennedy went to great lengths to essentially say that his faith was a private thing, unlikely to affect anything that he did in public life. I am unconvinced that was or could be true, but it may have been in keeping with a time that had not yet learned what the "absolute separation" of religion and public life would mean.
Romney did not make the same claim. Faith, he said, is important. But what is important, in politics, is the way in which faith informs public life, i.e., how it impacts temporal policies. He acknowledges that it does. But Romney says that his Mormonism, in that regard, is within the best tradition of the Abrahamic faiths. It says things about the value of all human beings and the value of freedom that are ultimately consistent with what most of us believe.
What I find odd about the reaction to this is the extent to which some people, who could care less about contentions regarding a God in which they do not believe, want to say that Mormon views about the nature of the reality we cannot see (and which they think is not there) differs from those of mainstream Christianity. So we see atheist bloggers on the HuffPo getting into debates about the nature of Christ that we have not seen since Nicea. Don't you see, they claim, he is theologically unsound
You know what? I think he is. You know that else? It doesn't matter. People can believe all sorts of things about the nature of God, but if the distillation of that into how we live today is consistent, then we can, despite our theological differences, make common cause.
I think Rick hits it right on the head. There's not and should not be a religious test for office, but we can look at what a candidate believes and draw conclusions.
"People can believe all sorts of things about the nature of God, but if the distillation of that into how we live today is consistent, then we can, despite our theological differences, make common cause."
I confess that after a few cocktails this evening the Appeals Court ruling against the Wisconsin Virtual Academy makes even less sense to me. Reading the decision would lead me to believe that because I chose the method to help my kid with his math homework (I used an Excel spreadsheet instead of paperclips) in the Wisconsin Dells last week the entire Waukesha School District should be shut down. (Suddenly I can't decide if I'm for or against the ruling.) Am I not número uno* responsible for my child's education? That's what the school district and WEAC keeps telling me. Off with their heads and defund them all! Start with Waukesha's Virtual Academy**, but leave no administrator in South's swimming pool behind!
The more level-headed and scholarly Rick Esenberg has just taken his first look at the ruling and has some serious questions. After reading Rick's comments and re-reading the ruling, I gotta believe the WVA has a strong case for appeal at the State Supreme Court.
Of course if we really had an "education governor", instead of calling a stupid special session to publicly fund the Democratic Party's candidates the governor would call a special session instead to immediately change the statutes to conform with the absurd Appeals Court ruling and keep WVA operating and the kids learning.
After all, all last year he had a virtual college education funding plan, so he must like virtual education, right?
*Somebody tell Peter DiGuadio that means "number one". I watch Dora the Explorer with my kids. But shouldn't she speak Portugeuse? ** Wait until Steve learns about the secret plans for a virtual pool.
Ann Coulter is swimming in controversy again, this time for an interview with Donny Deutsch who took offense at his imperfections being pointed out. Here's the transcript:
DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's — with abortion — what would this country look like?
COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) ... It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country — it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter —
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want — I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: That there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were — if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —
DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" —
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more "Big Idea" when we come back.
(BREAK)
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won't we? Ann Coulter. New book. More "Big Idea" straight ahead.
So basically Deutsch asks Coulter what her ideal United States would be, and among her other responses she expressed her desire that we were all Christians. Deutsch takes offense, presses her further, and Coulter expresses her desire for the "perfection" of the Jews. Deutsch gets even more offended.
How silly, really. Does Deutsch really believe himself to be perfect? Does he really believe Christians shouldn't pray for his conversion? Does he hold himself and other Jews to be of such low account that no Christian should want them to convert? Or should we all do our best imitation of Carmela Soprano? "The difference between you and me is you're going to Hell when you die."
Conservatives find themselves again in the uncomfortable position of having to clean up in the wake of Ann Coulter who will only move on to say something completely indefensible while trying to sell yet another book. Coulter already tried to stir up something with her remarks about women's suffrage, but even Coulter could not be taken seriously that time.
Again, let's note that what she said this time was perfectly defensible. However, if Deutsch (who was clearly probing for some obnoxious Coulterism) hadn't been sidetracked by the conversion issue, wasn't it likely Coulter would've said something else? We'll never know, although there's always the next interview.
So we're stuck defending a legitimate idea, one that was relatively uncontroversial, because Ann Coulter corrupts any idea that she comes in contact with. To her defenders I have to ask whether her schtick is finally growing old, and whether the damage she does to the conservative movement is really worth her selling a few more books.
The court case involving a guardian seeking to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for a La Crosse woman is over for now.
In a surprise move Friday in La Crosse County Circuit Court, attorneys for the guardian withdrew a request to stop life-sustaining treatment. They asked La Crosse County Circuit Judge Scott Horne to dismiss the case without prejudice, leaving the door open to refile the case at a future date.
Charles Barr, a Milwaukee attorney for the guardian, told the judge he had received a medical opinion about the woman recently “that convinced us not to proceed at this time.”
Had Wisconsin Right to Life and Rick Esenberg not intervened, would Barr and the guardian have received the medical opinion in time to save her life?
In Wisconsin, a guardian has no authority to withdraw life-sustaining treatment unless the patient is in a persistent vegetative state or has expressed wishes through a conversation or advance directive. Attorneys for the woman said she is not in a persistent vegetative state and doesn’t have an advance directive.
Making decisions at the end of someone's life can be extremely difficult, but the error should be on the side of life.
However in this case, "Marilyn" was not terminally ill and is not in a persistent vegetative state. She is suffering from dementia after several strokes, a dementia that causes her to tear out her feeding tubes. The Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center keeps her sedated to prevent her from doing that. It is the life-saving choice, and one preferable to euthanasia by starving a woman to death.
There was some discussion on Eric Von's show on WMCS-AM during the "Backstory" segment about whether or not Michael McGee Jr should be removed from his committee assignments during the investigations, prosecution and sentencing to come. Former Crazy Shepherd columnist Dave Berkman argued that McGee Jr is innocent until proven guilty, and that he was uncomfortable at any level of government of removing an elected official from their chairmanships and committee assignments until they've been proven guilty.
While it's nice to hear such a reasoned and stirring defense of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R) by Berkman, I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Rick Esenberg who patiently explained why someone should be removed from those positions as a matter of prudence while the investigation proceeds. He compared the McGee Jr situation to a cop who is assigned desk duty after shooting someone while the investigation proceeds. Whether or not it is likely the shooting is wrongful, you still don't want the police officer on the street making decisions about using their gun while their judgement in that area is being investigated. Similarly, you don't want a politician in the position of being able to use the power that he is accused of abusing until trust is restored.
I want to take this a step further. Mark Belling reminded his audience today that McGee Jr still gets paid while the investigations continue (ht: Patrick at Badger Blogger) and that if he holds out until April 2008 McGee Jr will be vested in his pension.
Let me remind you what McGee Jr's lawyer said in court,
McGee's attorney, Glen Givens, said prosecutors are confused about street language and at worst the trio were guilty of planning a battery, which is a misdemeanor.
So McGee Jr's defense is that he was engaged in a conspiracy of violence, just an amount of violence not rising to the felony level. So we're no longer talking about whether or not McGee Jr is guilty. Instead the questions left are the severity of the crimes, their cataloging and his sentence.
There's not any reason for him to remain in office a moment longer than it takes for the Milwaukee Common Council to remove him.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has already asked McGee Jr to resign. Milwaukee Common Council President Willie Hines Jr is calling for a thorough review of "all license applications and other city business under way in McGee's district."
It's time to step it up and remove McGee Jr from office, and it's already past time for the city leadership to take the necessary steps to start the process.
If our talk show hosts had called upon the masses to rise up and stomp the poor fellow, he'd have a point. But criticizing someone - even harshly - does not qualify. Even urging people to let someone - say a politician or a business - know that you disapprove of some action they have taken does not qualify.
