WisGOP: Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates violate judicial ethics

Time to read
2 minutes
Read so far

WisGOP: Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates violate judicial ethics

January 14, 2023 - 08:11
Posted in:

MADISON, Wis. — In case you missed it, during the Wispolitics Supreme Court forum, the liberal Supreme Court candidates, Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell showed they intend to be rubber stamps for the liberal agenda on the Court.

While Wisconsinites expect the Supreme Court Justices to apply the law regardless of their personal beliefs or their parties’ beliefs, Protasiewicz and Mitchell have taken it upon themselves to offer personal assessments of the issues of the day and telegraph how they would rule. Protasiewicz presented a clear bias on a matter that likely will come before the Court, repeatedly labeling the legislative maps as “rigged, absolutely, positively rigged.” Mitchell believes “the maps we have now have are rigged” leaving little doubt that he too would push for outcomes that align with his personal views regardless of the letter of the law.

Lost in their partisan arguments was the fact that Wisconsin Assembly Republicans held the majority for 14 of 16 years prior to legislative maps being drawn by the GOP controlled Legislature, and the fact that Governor Evers’ maps violated the Voting Rights Act.

Protasiewicz and Mitchell are running to be rubber stamps for the left, not open minded members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and made it clear their personal beliefs are more important to judicial rulings than the rule of law.

Dan Kelly and Jennifer Dorrow both made it clear they would only apply the law to the case at hand and leave their personal beliefs aside – fulfilling the responsibilities of a judge to uphold the Constitution above all else.

“Wisconsin has never seen Supreme Court candidates show such willingness to ignore judicial ethics as Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell,” said Executive Director Mark Jefferson. “The next member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court should not allow their personal opinions to impact their application of the rule of law. These liberal candidates hoping to impose their personal views are running for the wrong job. They want to be legislators.”

There are 2 Comments

One thing we all need to learn is that we can't have everything we would like. America is great because of our Constitution and without it, America will fail. Liberals swear to uphold the Constitution, but they profess to violate it if elected. If we had the courage to speak up, this is the crime of Treason

Treason is the crime of betraying one's country and within the United States if this person is guilty of treason under the law shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined not less than $10,000.

THis race is clearly coming down to Protesewiecz, Kelly and Doro. Mitchell will be an "also ran."

But WHY would a leftist want to vote against pro-abortion (baby murder) Janet? How about this. A supreme court judge should as stated indirectly or directily in the above op ed, rule based on the law, its applicability in a particular case before them, and whether that law comports with the state and federal constitutions. Anything beyond that is judicial activism, legislating from the bench. So if Janet will vote FOR one or your pet issues, could she not also vote AGAINST in the future? Quite clearly, with judges like Janet P, the law can mean whatever she wants it to mean, but in that case, it means nothing at all. So TYRANNY is possible if not likely with a court filled with Janet P's.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.