Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The Supremes: Wrong Again...and Again

In my humble but deadly accurate opinion, our state’s highest court is on an express elevator to hell. Goin’ off the rails on a crazy train, as Ozzy would say. Now, the court is so deeply divided along political lines that they put out separate opinions about Justice Gableman’s adventures in advertising.

That topic in a moment.

A day or so before the supremes issued their dueling reports about Gableman’s fate last week, they unanimously – and poorly – decided that the appeals court was right in upholding the state’s so-called ban on gay marriage. The constitutional amendment, pushed for by people like that horrible Appling woman (self-proclaimed moral watchdog and guardian of the sanctity of marriage in Wisconsin), is just another example of how stupid people can be when they pay attention to slogans instead of critically thinking about the issue.

In a few years, the amendment will be repealed, and the supremes won’t have a role. Eventually, the fear and hatred of gay people will subside to a level where the majority of cheeseheads will understand that it’s wrong to discriminate against an entire class of our fellow citizens.

Marriage will still be safe for Brittney Spears, Al Gore, John Edwards, Larry King, and everyone else, Wisconsinite or not.

Now, the Gableman decision: at issue are the deliberately misleading and lying ads Gableman ran during his campaign in 2008, trying to make people believe that incumbent Justice Louis Butler turned a sex offender loose to offend again. Since Gableman can’t vote on this one, because he himself is involved, the justices split right along “party lines”, hence deciding not to decide.

Justices Abrahamson, Bradley, and Crooks wrote an opinion saying their colleague’s ads lied, and he should be disciplined; Justices Prosser, Roggensack, and the Gut-Check Justice (Ms. Ziegler) wrote an opposing opinion, saying the ads were distasteful but didn’t violate any laws.

And you were lead to believe in civics class (years ago, when they still had civics classes in school) that justice had nothing to do with politics.

Justices Abrahamson, Bradley, and Crooks, acknowledging that the 3-3 split on the court is not going to change, want the Judicial Commission to review the case and then proceed to a jury trial.

If so, consider this my application for a media credential to cover the trial. It should provide plenty of drama and comic relief.


  1. In a few years, the amendment will be repealed, and the supremes won’t have a role.

    I'll take the opposite side for twenty-five cents (still a gentleman's bet, no?)

    Straight up, no odds...payable 1/1/15

  2. This is a remarkably creepy state of affairs. Are the citizens of Wisconsin, long known across the nation for their preference for good government, OK with their highest court being a leisure service of the political parties?

  3. Dad, you're on....for a quarter, not to be adjusted for the impending huge deflation.

    January 15, 2015. No odds, straight quarter-of-a-dollar. I know we're both good for it.

  4. I know we're both good for it.

    At this time, that is true.