• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative group asks for investigation of judges who signed recall petitions

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A conservative legal group has asked the Wisconsin Judicial Commission to investigate whether 29 circuit court judges engaged in misconduct by allegedly signing recall petitions against Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

The complaint by the Landmark Legal Foundation alleges the judges violated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct by "improperly engaging in partisan political activity."

I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
 
I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

The problem that is not mentioned in the article is that Walker claims he is not challenging anything to do with the petitions. In reality, out of state organizations are taking on those challenges for him. The political atmosphere here has been very volatile the last year and a half.
 
I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Obviously it's just a pathetic case of sour grapes, given that they had tens of thousands more signatures than they needed.
 
Obviously it's just a pathetic case of sour grapes, given that they had tens of thousands more signatures than they needed.

You should have seen the antics with people pretending they were going to sign a petition and then rip it up once they got it in their hands, or grab the clipboard and driveaway.... Apparently it is indeed a felony.
 
Sucks that this movement was corralled into an anti-Walker recall petition drive.

You mean the antics? or the petition drive itself being anti-walker?

I saw last week that Pam Galloway (Wausau) resigned, she was on the recall list.
 
You mean the antics? or the petition drive itself being anti-walker?

I saw last week that Pam Galloway (Wausau) resigned, she was on the recall list.

Republicans have started a recall drive against Senator Schultz, a Republican, because he isn't going along with the Walker agenda. Walker and his bunch are bat poop insane.
 
Republicans have started a recall drive against Senator Schultz, a Republican, because he isn't going along with the Walker agenda. Walker and his bunch are bat poop insane.

Total guano.
 
I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Man then there is a lot of communists in the GOP Danarhea if asking for investigations for partisan political reasons is considered "communist" :)
 
I don't see a probalem with investigating the issue. I would assume that hte judges probably did not do anything wrong and nothing will come of it.

Having said that, though, the judge that invalidated the voter ID law, should face scrutiny. He had an obligation to inform the parties that he had signed the recall form, especially when hearing a case where the individual he endorsed the recall of is a defendant on the case he is hearing.
 
I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

I think the only Judge that should have been investigated was the one that signed the petition, and then presided over a case questioning the validity of the petition. Seems like he should have recused himself from that case.
 
I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

You don't see that as a blatant conflict of interest? Isn't justice supposed to be blind and judges are supposed to be impartial? How can you honestly say that a judge who signed a recall petition and then later making a ruling on that petition can be impartial?
 
You don't see that as a blatant conflict of interest? Isn't justice supposed to be blind and judges are supposed to be impartial? How can you honestly say that a judge who signed a recall petition and then later making a ruling on that petition can be impartial?

By that regard, no judge that is Christian should be allowed to rule on anything dealing with something that could go against their faith, like abortion.

How can a Pro-life judge be impartial?
 
By that regard, no judge that is Christian should be allowed to rule on anything dealing with something that could go against their faith, like abortion.

How can a Pro-life judge be impartial?

And how can a Pro-choice judge be impartial? We need robots.
 
And how can a Pro-choice judge be impartial? We need robots.

I think the best bet would be to have a judge who is for and a judge who is against make rulings together.
 
Then robots?


Robots or you just have to have faith that the judge will actually.....wait for it.....do their job and be impartial. Take your pick, but if anyone is going to try and site conflict of interest because of a signed petition, then no judge that is pro-life or pro-choice can ever rule on abortion because of conflict of interest.
 
If judges can remain impartial then they should be able to agree.

Not necessarily. Two judges can be impartial and still come up with different rulings. Otherwise there would NEVER be a need for an appeals court if all judges thought alike.

Just because they come up with different rulings doesn't mean one is impartial and the other isn't.
 
I have 2 things to say here:

1) Exercising your right to vote, sign a petition, or otherwise engage in performing your duty as a citizen, is not engaging in partisanship political activity. If it were, then we need to throw every single Wisconsin judge in jail, since they typically run as Democrats and Republicans when campaigning.

2) I disagree with the author of the article when he calls this group out of Virginia a "Conservative" group. Since they advocate using a big government solution to have those judges "investigated" because of their personal political lean, you can't call them Conservative. Communists, maybe, but definitely not Conservative. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
Our absurd ideologies end up in contradictions. But this is only an apparent one. Conservatives believe that democracy is mob rule, therefore the majority should not be encouraged to participate except when electing pre-owned candidates. So using the special-interest kind of government they want, one run by pre-owned lawyers, to stop any government official from aiding mob rule is not a contradiction.
 
Part of the problem here is that Walker said he was not going to challenge anything related to the recall petitions. Which is true, to a point. There are out-of-state organizations who do not represent any interest in the state who are trying to challenge items related to the petitions.

If we expect Judges to maintain a completely unbiased view, they should be barred from participating in anything relating to the types of cases they may hear. Which pretty much means they could have no political views / activities, not donate to anything, not socialize with anyone involved etc... The public would expect the Judge to remove himself from having a life. I think the best way to approach this is to allow the Judge to recuse himself from anything he may feel conflicted about. After all, the Judge is in that position because the people trust hos judgement, right?
 
I got a good chuckle from dana calling Mark Levin 'communist' seeing as that is who Landmark Legal Foundation is. heh, heh....Once again dana....Change your lean bro, you ain't foolin' anyone.


j-mac
 
I got a good chuckle from dana calling Mark Levin 'communist' seeing as that is who Landmark Legal Foundation is. heh, heh....Once again dana....Change your lean bro, you ain't foolin' anyone.


j-mac

And my own lean has what to do with the issue of judges signing recall petitions? Oops, nothing, which is exactly what you just brought to this discussion.

Carry on, and thanx for playing. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom