Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Should Fallone have run against Abrahamson?

I commented at the Fairly Conservative blog that I thought Ed Fallone, a candidate for the State Supreme Court had lied by omission in interviews I'd seen.

After watching a couple more interviews I have to apologize for that statement.  It was a combination of omission and some very poor interviewers. You see when a man says I'd be different, the natural followup should be how.  Well the question was not asked and Mr. Fallone didn't elaborate.

Fallone insists that the court is dysfunctional and he's the cure.  Well Mr. Fallone, most would point to the top of a company or group to see why it's dysfunctional.  If you were honest Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson would be in your cross hairs, not Justice Roggensack.  Who you wouldn't fight or disagree with is the liberal branch of the court headed by Abrahamson.

Mr. Fallone has also said that his election would make the Supreme Court better because he doesn't bring any "baggage" to the court.  You signed the Gov. Walker recall petitions and you've written against the Act 10 law.  Do you really think you can people can't see past your agenda? 

It will be interesting to see how this election stacks up.  Vince Megna is on the wacky left while Ed Fallone will look moderate compared to him.  Will Megna try to get Fallone to admit his political biases or will he let him slide while both attack Justice Roggensack. Let the games begin.


capper said...

Um, Abrahamson isn't running. That makes it a little hard to run against her. And Abrahamson isn't the one that recused herself from a hearing that wasn't even scheduled or rubberstamped a faulty ruling based on politics instead of the law.

yoSAMite said...

I know she isn't running, but the Supreme Court's dysfunction isn't a new thing. If he felt that was a problem he should have run against her a couple of years ago.

How can a judge or justice rule in a case they are also witnesses to? Fair or not, the recusals make sense to me.

capper said...

Justice Crooks made it explicitly clear why they ought not to recuse themselves.