I’d be in favor of a short suspension from the bench for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler…

January 8th, 2008

..if that meant that the folks on the Left would stop calling Justice Ziegler corrupt.

But they won’t.

They don’t care that (as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board admitted), best cialis treatment

Ziegler didn’t mean to violate the ethics code, cialis sales unhealthy and she and her family didn’t benefit from the rulings, troche the panel found. Also, Ziegler made the correct rulings and no parties to the cases sought to reopen them after her conflicts were disclosed, it said.

The Left in Wisconsin will never stop crying corruption when it comes to Annette Ziegler, because it gives them a muzzle to silence her with whenever they think she might vote against their interests.

And that disenfranchises every single person who voted for her in the election.

And, as far as I’m concerned, that’s a much bigger lapse of ethics than anything Justice Ziegler is accused of doing.

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Chris  |  January 8th, 2008 at 8:50 am

    But Elliot that is what the left is about in America, disenfranchising those who do not think or vote like them

    To the left Free Speech only applies to them and those who think like them.

    You would only hope that Justice Ziegler just understands nothing she does will appease those people and just continue to make the proper rulings based on the laws of this state.

    In the end her doing the right thing based on the law will defeat these nasty vicious hateful people that make up the left in Wisconsin.

  • 2. Jack Lohman  |  January 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am

    It seems our “values” side has missed the point. ALL corruption should be dealt with regardless of party. Ziegler is the best case that could be made for appointed judges with legislature confirmation. She never would have made the grade, but WMC made it happen.

    What is most bothersome is the study a couple of years ago that demonstrated that in 75% of the cases reaching the Supreme Court there was a campaign contributor on one side or the other.

    Where oh where are our heads?

    Jack Lohman
    http://moneyedpoliticians.net

  • 3. Kevin Binversie  |  January 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Jay,

    You did not just say that about Chuck Chvala did you? Have you even read the state’s case against him? Trust me, him copping a plea was the only thing that kept him out of jail for years.

    And if the reports he’s violating his parole are true, then he did indeed get off easy.

  • 4. grumps  |  January 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Chris, even the Justice has admitted the transgression. You can jump down off your spotted hobby horse now.

    This looks like one of those, “Haven’t they suffered enough?” arguments that Frau Bucher uses when she’s talking about poor Scott Jensen’s kids.

    People who break the law or violate their ethics vows need to face some consequences. I’m not sure why you can’t see that. I thought that the Right was supposed to be big on Capital R Responsibility.

  • 5. Chris  |  January 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    first grumps please feel free to shove my spotted horse hobby horse up your ass I know it will fit since you are such a big one.

    “People who break the law or violate their ethics vows need to face some consequences” coming from someone on the left that is beyond funny. Right like Doyle and all of his illegal campaign money

    once again justice, as long as it does not hurt a Democrat.

    How do you all go though life being such hypocrites? Sorry self righteous hypocrites I would not want to short change anyone

  • 6. folkbum  |  January 8th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    We wouldn’t stop calling her corrupt–well, maybe we’d say “reformed corrupt”–any more than the right has stopped calling Chuck Chvala corrupt. The difference is that we’d stiop whining about her slap on the wrist.

    I’m curious about this:
    like Doyle and all of his illegal campaign money

    Chris, what money did Doyle knowingly take that was illegal? He returned the Troha money once it was shown to be illegal collected (and others). The Hsu money he should return but there’s no evidence that those donations were illegal. If you know something that the Gov’t Accountability Board doesn’t, you should call them.

  • 7. Fred  |  January 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    Pardon me for sliding in an ounce of the truth here.

    Problem with the Ziegler issue is the vast majority of the cases questioned were small claims that went through her court for processing only. The Judge had nothing to do with the disposition of those cases.

    However, the left tried to make a huge something out of that nothing. This was paper-pushing and there was no judicial misconduct.

    Speaking of judicial misconduct… Not one person in any of the “actual” cases that went before her court on either side has made any complaint or raised one concern that the trial was not absolutely fair and not pre-judged or prejudiced by the judge, not one.

    What we have here is a number of leftists who think she should have excused herself from some cases that she did not, that is it.

    Again, no one on prosecution or defense in ANY of those cases has raised any concerns.

    And by the way, she did find against the bank her husband served on.

    So the nature of the complaint against Judge Ziegler is this.

    Some people think she could have done something there is not one ounce of proof that she ever did.

    These same people supposedly so caring about justice tried and convicted Judge Ziegler before anything was every done.

    Sorry folks that is all just the truth, but I am sure you will call it spin.

    Can I give you some advice?

    Next time, let go the small stuff (the small claims) and concentrate on the big stuff. Fact is you tried to slime too hard and no one believed you.

  • 8. Chris  |  January 8th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    what every Jay, you guys are so letter of the law when it is a person on the right but when it is one of yours unless they are caught on film you refuse to see anything Hell even if they are caught on tape you guys would look the other way.

    You and I both know Doyle is a rat and can be bought for the right amount of money being given to his campaign but once again since he is your rat you guys refuse to see anything

    Like I said you guys only care about the letter of the law when it being used against Republicans.

    You guys are ready to hang Ziegler,but were you all out front with your ropes and hangman nooses when it was someone like Chuck Chvala? Or Gary George or the McGee clan? I am sure you were all looking the other way or worrying how it would effect the balance of power in Madison or Milwaukee the law did not matter to you all then because it was one of yours.

    Trust me if one party in Wisconsin has an ethics problem it is Democratic Party.

  • 9. Melinda  |  January 8th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Let’s get to the bottom of this before you both start throwing punches… They ALL suck. The politician that is truly for the people is as commonly seen as a unicorn. In fact – probably as real as one.

  • 10. folkbum  |  January 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Well, Chris, actually, yes we liberal bloggers were demanding justice in the Chvala case (which is one reason why we’re so confused at your side’s insistence that Scott Jensen is the victim) and in the Gary George case. We campaigned against McGee in the recall and we hope he gets what he deserves if convicted.

    Those men all broke the law (McGee still allegedly). No one has done better than throw unsupported accusations at Doyle. Elaborate flow-charts trying to make smear-style connections or whatever. Look, Doyle is not my favorite Democrat, and if there were a shred of evidence he were really breaking the law, I’d call for his ouster right away. Fact is, you just don’t like his politics, so you’re looking for an excuse to get rid of him even though you can’t pin anything on him other than being a tax-and-spender.

  • 11. capper  |  January 8th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    A jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of murder, but that didn’t slow anybody down from calling him a murderer. So when someone is proven to commit a crime (admittedly not quite on the same scale as murder) it is wrong to call them a criminal?

  • 12. Tom McMahon  |  January 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    All the Ziegler-bashers couldn’t care less when Bill Clinton got away with perjury. They’re all hypocrites on this issue, every one of them.

  • 13. capper  |  January 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    And Tom proves my point again, with yet another example. Thanx, perfesser.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta