LOL... funny... it's still a fact that she has been criticized for taking campaign contributions from out-of-state donors... just as Charlie Sykes criticized Fallone for signing the recall (http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/charliesykes/186015401.html) a source you neglected to quote me on... so umm... I say I'm not bias... but rather fair my friend. If you are going to call me out on using "liberal" sources, might as well bring them all out.

@Denise

You forgot the biggest criticism of two of the candidates. They have never served as judges.

My point Denise is that you list Roggensack as a conservative, while Megna has made it clear he is a liberal Democrat, yet no mention. Further, the failure to acknowledge that every single public union has endorsed Fallone, sure would raise my suspicion, and I know you would too.

@Luke... I did point out that Peggy has been on the Supreme Court since 2003, that Fallone is a law professor and Megna is a lawyer. I also provided numerous links from 10 different sources, including the candidates websites.

Denise you don't even realize how biased you are, I suppose it is impossible for your.

"Roggensack, who has been described as a conservative" Now Denise, where is your corresponding statement that says "Fallone, who has been described as a liberal"

@Denise

I appreciate that, although I would have to look at your links and read them to come to that conclusion regarding the other two candidates. Yet you volunteered the criticism of Roggensack.

Your second paragraph mentions a "stark contrast" between the candidates, and your second to last paragraph mentions a criticism of Roggensack. I just thought that an article that focused on stark contrasts would include criticism of more than one candidate somewhere between those paragraphs.

Since experience is an issue in these races, and since two of the candidates have no experience, I would have included that information if I had written about the topic.

Just sayin'.

Jack, I just added it to the story.

@Denise

I approve of your changes. Thank you.

A liberal rag writing propaganda about the opposition is not real criticism. It is liberal politics. Money is money. Where is the real issues with the justice?

Posting the recall petition signature yourself would have been real reporting.

Jack...What unions? They're gone.

Legislating from the bench -- most egregious example: The Supreme Court of the United States appointing George Walker Bush President of the United States.

Actually Col. Mustard, the Supreme Court of the United States stopped the Supreme Court of the State of Florida from appointing Al Gore POTUS.

Don't forget Gwen 'crazy eyes' Moore. She has endorsed Fast Eddy Fallone too.

Is taking money from three members of the Walton Family and two members of the DeVos family is not biased? All of these people are known for the dedication to destroying public education. Betsy DeVos works on this cause nearly full time and has funded several organizations to this end.

No bias here.

Not that familiar with the DeVos family, but the Walton family has donated millions to public education, as well as public parks, public roads, etc... Boy are the Waltons evil.

"Is taking money from three members of the Walton Family and two members of the DeVos family is not biased?"

Simple answer, No.

Go Ed! Go Vince! Either choice would be great. And how do you know that Ed is not a good lawyer? Some of your statements are so juvenile. Furthermore, you are being allowed to write here without obvious experience. At least the Patch editors make a sincere attempt to be fair. All I get from you and your school buddies here is name calling nonsense, juvenile comments at best. No wonder your party loses.

Does Fallone even practice law? Can one be considered to be a good lawyer if they don't actually have a practice?

Define "good lawyer".

@Bubbles... I'll certainly add those labels. But I disagree with you that that I didn't give the reader a clear understanding of who their allegiances are with.

I think it's probably fair labeling as Roggensack is the only sitting judge of the three. She is the only one with a track record so she's the only one that can be labeled as 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

It contains sufficient changes, but not without bias. The use of "criticism" with regard to Roggensack brings the comments to the reader's negative attention by showcasing them. If the facts had merely been mentioned, as is the case with the other two candidates, most readers would not have given them much weight. After all, how important is an issue if it isn't brought to the reader's attention that a body of people are critical of it?

The reader will read that two of the candidates have no experience, but most won't realize that it's odd that someone with no experience is running for a position on the state's highest court, unless it is pointed out that people are critical of it.

Why wouldn't people think it to be odd that people with no experience as a judge would be running for the state's highest court? I would expect people with little to no experience as a judge to be seeking office in the lower courts...

Cow,

Exactly. It's worth noting that the article mentions the endorsements that Follone has received, but none that Roggensack has received. It mentions the criticisms that Roggensack has received, but none that Fallone has received.

Sounds like more liberal bias. The article reports the endorsements for the Lefty candidate, but not for the Conservative.

Look at the links at the bottom of the article, too. "Peggy."

I don't think that anyone is claiming that it is a 'requirement' for someone to be an attorney or a sitting/retired judge. I think the point is, if we are choosing a judge to sit on the highest level of courts in the state, isn't it usually best to have someone with actual judicial experience at some level?

I want to make a correction concerning Becky DeVoss, it is Betsy DeVoss. My apologies.

Balance Trumps experience....

::: ELECTORAL SCORECARD :::

Balance 1 Experience 0 //Democrats +1 Republicans 0

Now mark that one down Bob McBride, on your scorecard (home version).

She has also been highly regarded in the judicial circles for her papers regarding impartiality. I find it interesting Lyle that your response includes qualifications, which you seem to have a higher regard for the Governorship, even though the requirements for that position are that you have to live in the state and be 18 yrs or older. I beleieve over the past two years you had stated that just because that is the minimum, we should have a higher expectation. You also seem to have a problem with the DeVoss contributions, but find no fault that every single public worker union has lined up behind Fallone. Does that mean we can expect that Fallone will be union friendly? Will he be part of the five that would overturn Act 10, even though it has passed the test of not only Wisconsin's Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution as well?

That is what is really on the line here and you and I shouldn't sugarcoat it as anything else. Fallone gets in, Act 10 falls and the unions get there way. School choice, based on its constitutionality has stood in every court in the land. I hardly would diavow someone based that they may or may not legislate from the bench on the issue, when we know that Fallone will legislate from the bench on Act 10. Which would totally go against the legislature and the will of the people who have supported Act 10 through reaffirming Walker.

Lyle is correct, the only requirement for any state wide office is to be a citizen in good standing in the state. What most commentators mean when they say qualified is competency as demonstrated by their experience. By those standards, neither Fallone or Megna is qualified.

What they have demonstrated is the willing to look beyond a Judicial role and apply personal politics when making a decision. Roggensack on the other hand has taken the more reserved position of apply the State Constitution and current law i her positions.

@Brian Dey....I don't know what you call bi-partisan support. Follow the money.

Lyle- The Milwaukee Firefighter's Union endorsed Roggensack, and they are usually Democrat leaning.

Be truthful Lyle. You would prefer the Justices were all of a liberal slant.

@Marty...Sorry, but I don't want biased judges. I want judges who can view the issues that come before them with a clear rationality. They need to know constitutional law and how their opinions will be used in the future as precedent. A liberal court is just as destructive and unjust as a conservative court. I think we are wrong in the State of Wisconsin electing judges. Politicizing the process is the reason we get such dysfunctional courts.

Which of the candidates do you see as unbiased, Lyle?

Fallone signed the recall petition and has the endorsements of the unions. Sounds like he is perfectly aligned to be the 'anti-Walker' judge--hand picked by the Dems to invalidate everything Walker does.

Sounds to me like we need a Chief Justice who can keep order. The "tumultuous incidences" I assume you're referring to, as I recall them being reported, involved two parties - one of whom is generally identified as being liberal. It turned into a case of "he said - she said". Ordinarily if you've got situations like that in an organization and they persist to the point where they're an ongoing factor, you start looking at the head of the organizational structure.

I think Marty's right, Lyle. You see an opportunity to promote a liberal who's being backed heavily by public employee unions and and you'd prefer him on the bench. The balance argument (although I'm not buying that 100% either) makes more sense in this case than does the "dysfunctional court" argument. It will remain dysfunctional for as long as the current Chief Justice permits it to be so.

Lyle, save your broom for Justice Abrahamson and Bradley, who clearly are partisan, along with having a long history of picking fights - including physical altercations with other justices. You have nothing on Roggensack, and your dismissive attitude towards bench experiance reveals your own bias. Inexperiance over demonstrated sound Constitutional decision-making? Victory by any means, eh? Lack of experiance certainly worked in the President's favor. Oh, that's right. He, too, was a Constitutional Law Professor - except we've never seen any of his scholarly work (beyond his two debunked autobiographies). Beware of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Lyle- I would like you to point to one biased decision involving Roggensack. Further, I assume that guilt by association, should deem her unelectable? That is a far reach, and considering that she is the only candidate that has bi-partisan support, makes her a great choice. Fallone is just another stooge to the unions. If you are looking for unbiased, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Lyle wrote: @Marty...Sorry, but I don't want biased judges..."
Lyle, the reason we vote is because of bias. I am voting for Roggensack because she did not use personal politics on her vote concerning Act 10. She looked to see that if it violated the State Constitution or conflicted with current law.

I am assuming you are voting for one of the other two since it is obvious they would have voted against Act 10. And for no other reason than they didn't like the law, not because it wasn't Constitutional.

Those are our biases. I believe court decisions should be applied to the law, not personal opinions or politics. Megna and Fallone believe in applying personal beliefs to decisions.

@CowDung....I don't see any of the candidates as unbiased. In an effort to at least return balance to state government, a liberal slanted justice is more acceptable than continuing the dysfunctional conservative institution that the High Court has become.

@Bob McBride....Since we aren't going to get an unbiased court, then it is time to elect a liberal slanted justice to return balance to our government.

@GearHead....I want to sweep out the whole bunch. As each comes up for reelection we need to replace them. As far as I'm concerned none of them belong on the High Court.

Bringing up Obama is strictly a red herring and has nothing to do with this Supreme Court race.

@Bob McBride....Since we aren't going to get an unbiased court, then it is time to elect a liberal slanted justice to return balance to our government.

********************

I'm going to have to ask again, Lyle. When we had a state government controlled by Democrats, did you vote for a conservative slanted justice for the Supreme Court in order to return balance to the same?

@The Anti-Alinsky....Act 10 is not the issue. As far as I am concerned the union issue was a no brainer, it was statutory and as such could be changed at any time. If the unions want to reinstate the public employees' bargaining rights, they will have to do it legislatively. The voter ID law will probably come up before the High Court and possibly even the US Supreme Court.

@Lyle: So you have learned nothing in the last few years, have you? Are you saying tossing Prosser, and replacing with Klopp would have somehow improved the court? Beyond her unqualification, she went on record over how she would overturn Act 10. Naturally the unions supported her. Doesn't that smack of the bias you abhor?

@GearHead....What I have learned is that after Justice Prosser was reelected, he gave graphic evidence of his unsuitability. It is clear that he has problems with anger management and impulse control. This was hinted at prior to the election, but I brushed it off as political propaganda. If Prosser was an honorable man, he would have resigned or resign even now and give Governor Walker an opportunity to appoint his replacement to serve out the rest of his term. This doesn't have anything to do with Kloppenburg.

Lyle:

What exactly is the 'graphic evidence' that you speak of? Why isn't Bradley the one that is accused of having anger issues? It's pretty clear that she was the aggressor in the incident. Prosser did not move toward her--she moved toward him.

@CowDung....The minute he put his hands on her, he stepped across the line.

Defending oneself is 'crossing the line'? Bradley was charging toward him--what was he supposed to do, just stand there an let her hit him?

@CowDung...There is no evidence that see was going to hit him. She did get in his face. As far as I am concerned, a man never puts his hands on a woman unless it is to defend his life or avoid significant battery and then only defensively. CowDung, is this a double standard? It's OK to throttle a woman who gets in your face?

She had her hand raised and was moving quickly toward him. He wasn't moving toward her at all. Witness statements indicated that they thought Bradley was going to hit him in the face...

If Prosser was indeed acting out of anger or aggression, wouldn't he have made a move toward Bradley?

...and Bradley admitted that Prosser didn't 'throttle' her.

From what I understand there were at least a couple of versions of what occurred. Without the benefit of actually being there, I'm not sure how one can say much more than that there was a confrontation between the two that involved some physical contact.

There is consensus that it was Bradley that moved toward Prosser. Prosser did not advance toward Bradley. He was clearly on the defensive.

Interesting overview of how the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices have been behaving in "Bradley received more security before Prosser incident, safety concerns remain", 2/13/2013, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, at http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/justice-bradley-sought-more-security-long-before-incident-with-justice-prosser-7o8p2n5-191072701.html

Here is a link to Justice Bradley's memorandum, which describes incidents of workplace violence at the Wisconsin Supreme Court: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/wheeler_docs/files/0213judicialcommvprosser.pdf

Funny how she didn't mention how she was the one that moved toward Prosser. If the guy really intended to attack and cause her harm/strangle her, he would have made a move toward her.

At least you gave a reason, and not an opinion peppered with juvenile comments. Thank you for that. I don't agree with your choice, but I respect your decision. The rest of the juveniles here need to learn how to debate a topic without resorting to taunts, name calling, and cutesy sayings. I

Lee,
As do you.

Greg. Your reply to me mystifies.

Go figure.

clueless...

@Brian Dey....What are you clueless about? The facts that show the court is dysfunctional?

Lyle, robert just spewed out the standard Wisconsin Left talking point they have done every Supreme Court election for the past several years. That is what is clueless.

When Annette Ziegler beat Linda Clifford in 2007, the Left just went on a rampage. It didn't matter to them that Clifford had no judicial experience, nor any of the non-incumbent candidates since. Their activist candidates lost and they can't seem to let it go (as evidenced by robert's rant). Now they are attempting to manufacture a crisis to give Pat Roggensack a black eye ( http://muskego.patch.com/blog_posts/united-wisconsin-calls-on-supreme-court-justice-roggensack-to-denounce-inflammatory-remarks-made-by-senator-ron-johnson ).

As for the court being dysfunctional, much of that seems to come down on Shirley Abrahamson. She is a intelligent, hard working justice that apparently has trouble with people disagreeing with her. Her role as the Chief Justice, as well as being the most tenured, puts her in a position that should be bring the dysfunctionality under control. Instead she seems to feed it using Ann Walsh Bradley.

Regardless, Roggensack is one of the more stable elements of the court, is impartial and I have already voted for her!

Choking hazard? Really Bob? Prosser looks like he weighs about 98 lbs dripping wet. Bradley probably outweighs him. Abrahamson certainly does.

I don't believe that Fallone has ever had the opportunity to rule on the law...

Bob, Obama was supposedly an experianced law professor, except nobody has ever seen any of his scholarly work (excepting his 2 debunked autobiographies). Isn't his dismal record proof enough law professors are a liability?