Red, the question you asked was answered by me 4 separate times in this thread…I said he was not unqualified. What part of those comments do you not understand?

Next time try to read the comments before going into a tirade.

That's great RAF, I ask you a question and you quote me out of context. You dodge every question that requires you to provide substance to justify your position. Well when you base your philosophy on the flawed dogma of the fringe right, as you do, its little wonder you have problems validating your stances on issues of substance, much less identifying right from wrong.

"I was wrong"
-
Yes, this is clear.

I was wrong RAF, your response was a disappointment. Once again you fail to provide an answer to a VERY simple question. If he was qualified to sit on our States Supreme Court why is he not qualified or entitled to be appointed as a Federal Judge? A vote taken by the general public is not a realistic assessment of determining a persons ability to serve on a court. Of course with your twisted logic I'm sure you believe the vote count is indeed "relevant".

markr, I was out of the country for the whole year during 95 when this took place. Looks like the electors did bounce him after the fact. I will take your word on the appointment by Thompson; I can't find anything to support or deny it.

raf--Back in the day, before we had Miller Park in Milwaukee, there were two votes held in one evening in the state legislature which defeated state funding for construction of the park. The Tommy Thompson-led neocon faction refused to adjourn until they had their way. Up until that time, I had never before heard of voting over and over and over, with no changes to the proposed legislation, until the majority party got their wishes. Basically, they said, "We're not leaving here tonight until we pass a bill that 65% of state residents are opposed to. But we, the Wisconsin repubic party, want it, and that is all that matters. So we will keep voting until we get our way, or we will sit here without adjournment for the next month." A repubic from Kenosha named Gerald Petak then switched his vote on the third vote of the night, and we have been (those of us subject to the sales tax) paying for it ever since. This caused a real uproar in Kenosha, where Petak was almost immediately stripped of his legislative seat in a recall election. When this happened, and the VOTERS REJECTED-EVEN TOOK HIS SEAT AWAY- tommy thompson rewarded Petak with an even cushier job in the administration than he had had as a legislator. Did you stand up then and say, "This man has been REJECTED by the voters. He has no business in the thompson administration."? I doubt it. That's the thing about hypocrites...it's only wrong when the other side does it.

Kind of a stretch saying a person that lost the election was not rejected by the voters; I do applaud your optimism.

Your comments on the justices are opinions based on conjecture; “only thing he is known for”, “contributed nothing of substance”. I am not complaining, I too have plenty of opinions. Not sure how these justify your statements earlier of legal prowess, unless this also was direct opinion…not requiring support.

RAF--He may be representative of the voters that showed up--but I don't think that can fairly be translated to 'voters in this State' rejecting Butler. As it is, the only thing I think that can be inferred here is that, of the 20% of the voters that showed up, Gableman was slightly favored over Butler. But, in no way can that be turned into an implication that somehow Butler should not have been selected as a federal judge. Regarding Justice Thomas--the ONLY thing he is known for in the majority of the legal community is that he can be counted on to concur with whatever Scalia writes. Thomas has contributed NOTHING of substance to American jurisprudence the entire time he's been there. And, for anyone to suggest that Thomas and Alito were the best legal minds this country could come up with--like you should have for that position--is crazy. Alito is simply a political pawn to do the conservatives' bidding on the Court. And, though I disagree with virtually all of C.J. Roberts' opinions, I do think he is one of the sharpest members recently appointed.

Speaking of irony markr, this judge also lost…hmmm.

raf has given me his permission to post. Don't I feel special?!? You neocons never cease to amaze me. You really believe that permissions are yours to give or withold. Get over it, pal. You lost. You can cry all day, you can make statements and then run away from them all day long, and you know what? You still lost!

Red, the answer you ask was already provided...I will post it again, maybe this time you will read it.

"I surmise this would be less noteworthy if he had never been on the Wis Supreme Court…"

I repeat, again, I never said he was unqualified. The relevance is very clear if you are willing to look at all the facts. He was appointed to the Supreme Court (qualified). He then decided to maintain this position and submitted his candidacy in the electoral process…he was rejected by the voters; again, still qualified for the position.

My comments are not in any relevance to his past/present/future legal positions, rulings, or briefs. The comments clearly point out the case where a sitting judge was rejected by the voters and then recommended by sitting representatives for a lifetime appointment to a federal position as in the same vein (different court/level). I didn’t even mention the political affiliation of any of those involved.

Cluelessness is observed when you fail to see all the facts…or you could look in the mirror, whichever is easier for you.

Why, RAF, after all the political wrangling surrounding WI Supreme Court elections the past few years would you even imagine people think the judiciary is apolitical? I'm quite sure the majority of residents in this State don't live in a cave! You're correct RAF, this has nothing to do with any other judges but then you go on to say the relevance is easy to grasp. Since you obviously have been able to pry yourself away from trying to guess other posters wishes please enlighten the rest of us as to the relevance that because Mr. Butler lost a "non-political" election it should preclude him from an appointment to the Federal court. Lack of experience? Well he did serve on the Supreme Court for a few years BEFORE the election. Would it be ok if he was appointed as municipal judge? Did his loss in that election diminish Mr. Butler's intellectual capacity to serve as a judge? What is the relevance? As you can plainly see by the other posts, everyone but you is completely clueless. I can't wait for your response. I'm sure you won't disappoint!

Red, your premise on its basis is absurd; your two ideologically driven answers, being the only allowed responses to something you disagree with. I see you are claiming, as you have done in other posts, a judgment of guilt on an otherwise innocent person; if he is guilty as you say, where is the conviction (yes also rhetorical). In our electoral system you can start a recall petition if you truly think the elected person is not worthy of the position. To this I recommend with all your obvious convictions —and supposed facts—you start one today, lest your conscience will not be silenced.

Strange thing though, as a sitting federal judge, the voters don’t have the same option…hmmm.

Professor if only 20% turnout for an election, in a free society, is the elected person(s) not representative of the voters? In the same vein is not the non-elected rejected? As I stated to markr, I never said he was not qualified, yet the nature of the events do pose an interesting dichotomy; voters electing Senators who then appoint a person the same voters rejected.

I am interested in your comments on Alito and Thomas, in deference to other justices, of their legal prowess and how this contrasts with other justices.

‘markr, your color commentary is always welcome.

My remarks were clear, never once did I say the person was unqualified. I did very clearly state this person was rejected by the voters in that capacity.

It is quite ironic, voters that rejected him also elected 2 senators who then recommended him for federal position as a judge after his rejection.

I surmise this would be less noteworthy if he had never been on the Wis Supreme Court, as it is, he was seated on the court and then subsequently rejected for a continuation of that seat; appointed to in the first place. Hence the irony; his political appointment was overruled, so to speak, by the voters who are now being overridden by the Senators they elected.

raf--Your typical silly diatribe is, as usual, so ill-conceived that it boggles the mind. Why does losing an election (even not taking into account that he lost because neo-cons were fooled by gableman's dishonest characterizations of Mr. Butler) make a person unqualified for a future position? I would like to think that in every election there are two qualified people to choose from. Your automatic dismissal of election losers would mean that the neo-con god, dick nixon, was serving when he had no business doing so. Can we have those years back?

Speaking of 'apolitical court appointments', Alito and Thomas are only on the 'high nine' because of politics; it's certainly NOT because of their legal prowess.

Either your ideology is clouding your vision RAF, or your attention span is awfully short. The Professor is 100% correct and add to the fact that Mr. Gableman only received 51% of the vote. Hardly a rousing endorsement. At the very least Mr. Gabelman is guilty of violating the judicial code of conduct, if not proclaiming an outright lie, for claims he made against Mr. Butler in one of his campaign ads. He does not even question the fact his ad was misleading and his defense amounts to his questioning of "what constitutes a lie?". Now wouldn't you think a Supreme Court justice would know the answer to that question? (Don't worry RAF, it's a rhetorical question).
Mr. Butler's intellect and non partisan views make him eminently qualified to serve on the Federal bench.

On a related issue, perhaps the "conservtive leaning" bloggers could expain why the two justices elected to the WI Supreme Court (both of whom were heavily endorsed by conservative groups based on their "strict adherence to law and order") have been investigated for ethics violations?

RAF--If you consider a 20% turnout for that election as somehow representative of how people actually feel about him, I have to question your understanding of elections. But, I want to avoid personal attacks here. Not to mention the fact the the guy elected by that 20% is now the second WI Supreme Court Justice that took their seat under a cloud of ethical violations--the latest being charged with knowingly lying or misleading the public with one of his campaign ads. PLEASE tell me that this is not o.k. with you. Regardless of your political concerns (with which I actually agree with you--these things are nowhere near apolitical), Louis is eminently qualified for this position.

This has nothing to do with other judges who never made it to the supreme court, it is about this particular judge...previously rejected by the voters of this state (not some mystic lobbying arm) and subsequently appointed to a federal position by elected representatives of the these same voters. The relevance is easy to grasp if you pry yourself away from trying to guess other posters wishes.

Hundreds of judges are nominated to the judiciary without ever having been on the Supreme Court at all. As a former justice at that level Butler is certainly qualified for the federal bench, and Wisconsin's votes endorsing Kohl and Feingold grant them the discretion to make these appointments. Someday, perhaps you two will get your wish and the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce will be able to directly choose judges, instead of mere Senators elected by the voters of Wisconsin.

Oh, that is good. Choose someone not chosen by the people of Wisconsin--- to represent us in the Federal Court. Nice choice.
Now we need to vote against those senators who do not do what they are elected to do ---represent us.

The voters of Wisconsin choose not to rehire this judge in 2008, despite that (rejection), two Senators and the President decide he needs to be placed in a Federal position as a judge? People still think the judiciary is apolitical, has no political ties, and remains free from bias and influence by the executive branch…amazing.