Like many, I've been pondering the outcome of last week's Supreme Court race. Most of my pondering has gravitated towards the process of election rather than the outcome of this particular ballot.
I'm not particularly disturbed by Michael Gableman's victory, nor do I impart much meaning to it. As I've said previously, I don't think either Butler or Gableman is especially qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and most voters can't cast an informed ballot because they have no idea what an appellate court does.
Louis Butler spent a couple of years as a circuit court judge. Before that, he spent a decade presiding over cases involving ordinance violations. And prior to that, he was a public defender - an important job, truly, but one that hardly anyone enters law school trying to land. It's usually the kind of job people settle for. He also ran for the Supreme Court once before and got slaughtered.
Michael Gableman has a law degree from Hamline University, a C-rate law school that is a hardly a destination for anyone looking to pursue a legal career. It's not even in the top 100 in the U.S. News rankings, and rubs shoulders with schools like Cleveland State, Ohio Northern, and the University of Baltimore as a Tier 3 law school. Like Butler, Gableman soon took refuge in public sector work, scoring employment as an Assistant D.A. before obtaining appointments as District Attorney and Circuit Court Judge.
Clearly, these are not two of Wisconsin's finest legal minds. Wisconsin's finest legal minds are probably too busy in private practice to be bothered with a job that pays less than that of a first-year associate.
That's a huge problem, and it's the first step Wisconsin must consider to improve the quality of its future justices. Wisconsin must consider the cost of competence. I've long held that Wisconsin's legislature would be more productive if we either doubled their pay, or cut their pay in half and truly made the job part-time. $48K a year isn't enough to draw a number of highly desirable legislative candidates, and the present workload is too great for most highly-qualifed individuals to consider taking on lawmaking duties in addition to their careers. Of the states with full-time legislatures, Wisconsin ranks dead last in pay.
The same holds true for the Supreme Court. Let's not kid ourselves. Other than a bit of prestige, what kind of draw is a job that pays $135K a year when a first-year associate at Foley & Lardner or Quarles & Brady will probably pull in $175K in salary and bonuses? Is it any wonder then that you get the kinds of candidates for Supreme Court that you do?
Doubling the pay of Supreme Court justices would cost under $1 million annually. Compared to what we waste on feel-good programs like SAGE, that's a drop in the bucket. And the reality is that bumping pay up to around $270K a year will get you better prospects for the court, guaranteed.
The other problem rests entirely with the selection process. Do we really expect qualified judicial candidates to embrace the concept of having their professional reputations dragged through the mud for the honor of holding a job that might pay them a fraction of what they presently make?
Judicial candidates shouldn't be expected to pander to voters. They also shouldn't be held captive to the whims of the electorate. Part of being a judge is making decisions that are sometimes unpopular. Supporters of both Gableman and Butler were guilty of encouraging the public to hang the other guy based on previous rulings that may have been legally proper but went against the wishes of the public. Both were guilty of taking parts of the other's past and putting it in front of the public with virtually no context.
Appellate court justices need to be intellectual. But America is perhaps the one western nation in which campaigns take a decidedly anti-intellectual bent, where candidates dumb down their intellectual pedigree instead of playing it up. Too often, we deride candidates with successful careers and degrees from good schools as being out-of-touch and not like us. Look at what the Republicans did to John Kerry and Al Gore, or what the Democrats did to George H.W. Bush. In each case, the winner of the election was the candidate that voters felt was "more like them."
The Butler/Gableman race pretty much dispelled any concept of judicial integrity that might have existed in campaigns. The garbage Gableman put on the air was only surpassed by the bucket of slime WEAC dumped on Gableman's head in the final weeks of the race.
Most good judicial candidates will be legal creatures, not political ones. They don't want to waste their time raising money or speaking to the Rotary Club. They want to do their job. How could any of those people not be completely repulsed by the campaign they saw unfold over the last few months?
Voters have a pretty good idea of what a legislature does and what a governor does. Voters, however, have no idea what these appellate courts do. Their involvement is what allows the process to be completely perverted by interest groups on both sides. And public financing isn't likely to be worthwhile unless a method is devised to prevent third-party spending on judicial races. It does no good to publicly fund the candidates while interest groups are running amok with money donated by private parties.
At the end of the day, the question is simple: do we want a court made up of independent, highly-qualified legal minds, or would we rather have a court that is forced to pander like politicians, essentially dependent on interest groups and the partisan machine? A court where its members' allegiance is to the rule of law, or where its allegiance is to the WEACs and the WMCs of the world?
The choice for Wisconsin is clear. Raise pay for appellate court justices so that we can recruit decent candidates, and give them a dignified method of selection that allows them to remain focused on their jobs and independent of public pressure. The alternative is also clear: do nothing, and accept that in one or two decades, appellate courts will be dominated by special interest groups who will expect loyalty from those they elect.
I'm not particularly disturbed by Michael Gableman's victory, nor do I impart much meaning to it. As I've said previously, I don't think either Butler or Gableman is especially qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and most voters can't cast an informed ballot because they have no idea what an appellate court does.
Louis Butler spent a couple of years as a circuit court judge. Before that, he spent a decade presiding over cases involving ordinance violations. And prior to that, he was a public defender - an important job, truly, but one that hardly anyone enters law school trying to land. It's usually the kind of job people settle for. He also ran for the Supreme Court once before and got slaughtered.
Michael Gableman has a law degree from Hamline University, a C-rate law school that is a hardly a destination for anyone looking to pursue a legal career. It's not even in the top 100 in the U.S. News rankings, and rubs shoulders with schools like Cleveland State, Ohio Northern, and the University of Baltimore as a Tier 3 law school. Like Butler, Gableman soon took refuge in public sector work, scoring employment as an Assistant D.A. before obtaining appointments as District Attorney and Circuit Court Judge.
Clearly, these are not two of Wisconsin's finest legal minds. Wisconsin's finest legal minds are probably too busy in private practice to be bothered with a job that pays less than that of a first-year associate.
That's a huge problem, and it's the first step Wisconsin must consider to improve the quality of its future justices. Wisconsin must consider the cost of competence. I've long held that Wisconsin's legislature would be more productive if we either doubled their pay, or cut their pay in half and truly made the job part-time. $48K a year isn't enough to draw a number of highly desirable legislative candidates, and the present workload is too great for most highly-qualifed individuals to consider taking on lawmaking duties in addition to their careers. Of the states with full-time legislatures, Wisconsin ranks dead last in pay.
The same holds true for the Supreme Court. Let's not kid ourselves. Other than a bit of prestige, what kind of draw is a job that pays $135K a year when a first-year associate at Foley & Lardner or Quarles & Brady will probably pull in $175K in salary and bonuses? Is it any wonder then that you get the kinds of candidates for Supreme Court that you do?
Doubling the pay of Supreme Court justices would cost under $1 million annually. Compared to what we waste on feel-good programs like SAGE, that's a drop in the bucket. And the reality is that bumping pay up to around $270K a year will get you better prospects for the court, guaranteed.
The other problem rests entirely with the selection process. Do we really expect qualified judicial candidates to embrace the concept of having their professional reputations dragged through the mud for the honor of holding a job that might pay them a fraction of what they presently make?
Judicial candidates shouldn't be expected to pander to voters. They also shouldn't be held captive to the whims of the electorate. Part of being a judge is making decisions that are sometimes unpopular. Supporters of both Gableman and Butler were guilty of encouraging the public to hang the other guy based on previous rulings that may have been legally proper but went against the wishes of the public. Both were guilty of taking parts of the other's past and putting it in front of the public with virtually no context.
Appellate court justices need to be intellectual. But America is perhaps the one western nation in which campaigns take a decidedly anti-intellectual bent, where candidates dumb down their intellectual pedigree instead of playing it up. Too often, we deride candidates with successful careers and degrees from good schools as being out-of-touch and not like us. Look at what the Republicans did to John Kerry and Al Gore, or what the Democrats did to George H.W. Bush. In each case, the winner of the election was the candidate that voters felt was "more like them."
The Butler/Gableman race pretty much dispelled any concept of judicial integrity that might have existed in campaigns. The garbage Gableman put on the air was only surpassed by the bucket of slime WEAC dumped on Gableman's head in the final weeks of the race.
Most good judicial candidates will be legal creatures, not political ones. They don't want to waste their time raising money or speaking to the Rotary Club. They want to do their job. How could any of those people not be completely repulsed by the campaign they saw unfold over the last few months?
Voters have a pretty good idea of what a legislature does and what a governor does. Voters, however, have no idea what these appellate courts do. Their involvement is what allows the process to be completely perverted by interest groups on both sides. And public financing isn't likely to be worthwhile unless a method is devised to prevent third-party spending on judicial races. It does no good to publicly fund the candidates while interest groups are running amok with money donated by private parties.
At the end of the day, the question is simple: do we want a court made up of independent, highly-qualified legal minds, or would we rather have a court that is forced to pander like politicians, essentially dependent on interest groups and the partisan machine? A court where its members' allegiance is to the rule of law, or where its allegiance is to the WEACs and the WMCs of the world?
The choice for Wisconsin is clear. Raise pay for appellate court justices so that we can recruit decent candidates, and give them a dignified method of selection that allows them to remain focused on their jobs and independent of public pressure. The alternative is also clear: do nothing, and accept that in one or two decades, appellate courts will be dominated by special interest groups who will expect loyalty from those they elect.
6 comments:
Well a first year at Foley does not make quite that (close)... but the more important point is that a partner at Foley - who is more at the age where one would actually run for Supreme Court - is making several times what a first year makes.
I would take your conclusion one step further and say that in one or two decades we will have as much faith and respect in our Supreme Court as we currently do in our legislature.
Your 'expect loyalty' comment at the end also raises an issue about impartiality. The Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules note that "a judge must recuse himself or herself whenever the facts and circumstances the judge knows or reasonably should know raise reasonable question of the judge's ability to act impartially, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in SCR 60.04 (4) applies"
So since WMC spent millions to get him there, should he recuse himself in any case in which WMC has a fight (not even as a party, but perhaps any case they file an amicus curiae brief)?
I could make out an argument that I can "reasonably question" his ability to act "impartially." I mean, he's only human. I cannot imagine he won't notice WMC taking sides and have lurking in the back of his head the thought of 'they are a major reason i am here.'
Supervisor:
You say, "Both Gableman and Butler were guilty of encouraging the public to hang the other guy based on previous rulings that may have been legally proper but went against the wishes of the public."
When, exactly, did Butler do that?
Thanks for catching that. It was some sloppy editing on my part after pasting the text into Blogger. I've amended that paragraph to read as it originally did.
I should have re-read the final product more closely. That's my fault.
Thanks again.
Well said, RS.
I've never understood why our state's Supreme Court Justices served at the whim of the public, who, like you said, are largely ignorant of what an appellate court really does. I'd like to see the system of choosing Supreme Court Justices revamped to allow for an appointment and approval process that involves the legislature and/or senate.
I support appointing the supreme court. How do we get the public to approve the necessary constitutional amendment? tough row to hoe.
I don't care what mechanism they use - I just want honest government - and so does anyone who knows and cares. It's not that difficult to put one and one together, even in a toxic environment. Just do it.
Post a Comment