I agree that election reform is sorely needed, Professor. We are allowing special interests to buy influence through campaign donations. There should be strict limits on the amount of funds candidates may raise, spend (even if it's from personal finances) and especially limit singular donations. Using public funds is an excellent idea. These reforms should extend to all political and judicial elections, from President on down. Campaign advertising rules should allow the candidate to only present their own views and record of service, not those of their opponent/s. That would effectively eliminate negative advertising. Free speech should not allow an individual to defame another in an attempt to win an elected office.

RAF--Well, we both agree on your point about truth in advertising. And, blame for that must be placed square at the feet of "N.Y. Times v. Sullivan" Imagine how different elections would be if a candidate actually had to tell the truth? PanamaRed--that was a GREAT analogy about loopholes! I'd offer a high five, but, instead, let's see if we can get Mr. T. started again, so--here's a fist-bump. The State of Oregon has had some notable success in local political races being all publicially financed. Might be something to look into for the supremes' races, if we still keep them 'elected'. Can you all imagine the chaos in elections if the U.S. Supremes rule in favor of Citizens United?

Professor: Your 'poll test' idea would suit me fine. "The One" would never have been elected.

"The race card was played by the so-called "Citizens Action of Wisconsin" a far left-wing-nut group and taken up by the DemocRAT minions in the WJC."
-
Judging from your comments twain, I would consider you a right-wing-nut. Everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist (it would help if you actually KNEW what socialism is). You support a Judge who used deceptive advertising, bordering on outright lies, to unjustly discredit his opponent. That is fact, not opinion. Then you claim that "race" played a role.
The complaint by the group Citizen Action of Wisconsin correctly asserted Gableman made false statements in a 2008 campaign ad directed at Justice Louis Butler. Their claim is not without merit nor has Gableman denied the ad was misleading. Gableman is splitting hairs by saying he shouldn't be held accountable for misleading the public concerning Butler's judicial record based on freedom of speech. The Judicial Code expects judges to have high standards. This is why the Code provides that a candidate for judge cannot knowingly or with reckless disregard misrepresent a fact concerning an opponent. But all that is lost on you because Gableman is a conservative. Why do you believe conservatives should be held to a lower standard than liberals? You think conservatives can't get elected based on their merits so they should be allowed to use deceit in order to make their opponents look bad? You, like the Dishonorable Gableman, give conservatives a bad name. Or are you a nut posing as a conservative? I guess now I'M spitting hairs.

Professor: Your idea on 'poll tests' would suit me just fine. "The One" would never have been elected.

Personally I think all campaign advertizing should be held to the same standard as other advertizing...regulated by truth in advertizing laws; but leave it up to politicians to make laws they (party and 3rd party) do not have to follow.

"This is all about disaffected partisans playing the race card and nothing else."
There is not one single mention of race in either the article or in any of the posts, until you bring it up. Is this what you do when you lack the credible evidence needed to back up your claims? You resort claiming the charges against Gableman were based on race? Twain, you are really pathetic. I can see how you can identify with Gablemans lack of ethics.
-
Isn't it ironic that Gableman and his attorney now use a loophole to keep him ON the court just as he contended a loophole should be the basis for voting his opponent OFF the court.
James Bopp Jr.,Gableman’s attorney, argued that the complaint filed by the WJC should be dismissed because statements made in the ad are protected. Notice he failed to address the validity of the statements, just that they were protected.
-
Gableman is far from honorable as his past actions have more than proved.

Mr Twain speaking of clowns how has your day been?

Mr Twain I believe PanamaRed is exercising "freedom of speech" as did Mr Gableman! The last election I remember being stolen thru the courts involved a Republican from Texas!

Mr. T--You make me think that perhaps we need to bring back poll tests--make them legitimate this time (not like the past)--but require people to show some version of an I.Q. before letting them vote.

Leave it to mark_twain to show support for a Supreme Court Justice who sold what little integrity he possessed for a seat on the State Supreme Court. Although it must be noted Gableman had little choice; he never would have been elected based on his grasp of legal acumen or ethics.

Mr. Twain--As the saying goes, 'Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Perhaps you will enlighten us with the FACTS that somehow got past the Judicial Commission, resulting in these 'trumped up' charges?

The Commission is a state body, part of the judicial branch. Members are appointed in part by the governor and in part by other bodies. They clearly thought it was a sufficient case, but this ruling will have an effect on what they perceive as their statutory powers. I expect the WJC will appeal to the state Supreme Court, though Gableman will be necessarily recused. I don't think the WJC is going to accept this ruling from an appeals panel alone.

Apparently for the panel it is.

You kids are funny!
.
Wouldn't "judicial ethics" be an oxymoron?

I wonder if I called Gableman a jackass in court if he would laugh it off as free speech?

Note to self: Try to maintain a straight face when you get to the part about 'judicial ethics' in the full decision.