And I, for one, will be eagerly awaiting the moment in the next few weeks when Wisconsin Eye gets this video up on its website. (update: Video here, McCabe at 59:00, Prosser at 1:15:00. Typical Wisconsin Eye - click on the link and then go make dinner while the video loads. h/t Illusory Tenant)
If Prosser could've given McCabe a swirly and stolen his lunch money, that would've been great too. One wonders if the Board of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign will ever recognize that one of their biggest roadblocks to effectiveness is the fact that a sanctimonious twit like McCabe is the point man for their group.
“It seems to me there probably is some concern about the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and a lot of it is tied directly to you by misrepresenting things and exaggerating things,” Prosser said. “I don’t know why I should give you any credence.”
After a stunned pause, McCabe answered, “You give me far greater credit than I probably deserve."
“I don’t think you deserve any credit,” Prosser shot back.
If Prosser could've given McCabe a swirly and stolen his lunch money, that would've been great too. One wonders if the Board of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign will ever recognize that one of their biggest roadblocks to effectiveness is the fact that a sanctimonious twit like McCabe is the point man for their group.
7 comments:
Give me a break. Prosser was part of the problem when he was a state legislator. He knows how the game is played. He's just in a new game at the justice level.
That we citizens allow our justices to vote on cases involving their contributors is amazing. What part of "money" do we not understand?
McCabe is 100% correct in trying to get the influence out of the judicial system. If not here, where?
Prosser cleaned McCabe's clock for him. The stupid twit has had it coming to him for years with his holier than thou attitude, and Prosser verbally slapped the taste out of his mouth, and many more need to do the same and put this pathetic gang of whining thugs out of business.
Jack,
I'm not sure how often you read my blog or see my comments elsewhere. I've consistently argued in favor of merit selection of judges at the state and federal level.
But so long as we elect judges, it's silly to try and establish some kind of per se rule regarding recusal. Otherwise, what's to stop interested parties from trying to give money to judges they fear will be unfavorable in an attempt to get them removed? Or if I contribute to a judge's opponent and the judge is aware of that, should that also require recusal, since the judge knows I may not like him/her?
Mike McCabe is a twit, and Prosser's exactly right to call him out. What McCabe does is like when the GOP talks about Wisconsin being a tax hell, and then complains that businesses won't move here. McCabe constantly bitches and moans about how all the justices are bought off, and then complains that the justices have an image problem.
I don't get to read it often, Ryan, mainly because I've not seen a way to get an email when there is a new posting (and with gmail the RSS is not really user friendly for us old geezers).
But I could actually buy the "appointment of judges" if we could find a way to take the politics out of it. I don't think a lot of voters are astute enough to select judges without being overly swamped by erroneous claims in ads, and they often make stupid decisions.
So do politicians, though it's usually tied to political money (bribery), and that's what Mike McCabe complains about. And though we disagree on other issues (like voter ID), I agree 100% with him on that. I would not tolerate corrution in my own company, and I will not accept it from the politicians I employ. Judges taking money (or favors) is even worse, and Prosser should know better.
If we had public funding of campaigns (which McCabe and I totally agree on) we would not have politicians giving away taxpayer assets, which translates to high state taxes. (Though the Tea Partiers haven't gotten there yet.)
McCabe has gone way over the top on the issue of money in campaigns. His position is basically that there shouldn't be any, except taxpayer money. All contributions are bad, and all candidates and officials are sleazy. No one contributes for a good reason; contributions are legalized bribery. (OK, that's over-simplified, but over-simplification is what McCabe does every day.)
It do get a bit irritating.
Some people actually give money to a candidate because they like the person or his/her position on issues, not because they expect anything in return. I don't think WMC falls into that category, but many other donors regularly maligned by mcCabe do.
Little wonder people cheered when Prosser took him on.
My problem on McCabe is transparency apparently does not apply to his donors. To do good is noble. To tell others to do good is even more noble and far less trouble.
Wow, RS calling someone else a sanctimonious twit!
Post a Comment