Monday, March 16, 2015

Supreme Court Justice Or Supreme Corporate Injustice - The Choice Is Clear

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley recently came out with this commercial, which I like a lot:

It's really rather accurate, which is in itself is quite surprising for a campaign ad.

Walsh Bradley has consistently made her decisions based on the law and not on some political agenda.  Furthermore, Walsh Bradley has also shown herself to be willing to follow commonsense ethics, such as recusing herself from a pending case because her son works for one of the law firms involved.

In sharp contrast, her opponent, James Daley is the polar opposite.

Daley has already made it clear that he has a political agenda by taking $7,000 in in-kind contributions from the Republican Party of Wisconsin.  That a lot of help for what is supposed to be a nonpartisan seat.

On Sunday morning, Daley made it even clearer that he is running to be an activist on the bench and will make decisions based on the whims of his corporate masters instead of what the law and the constitution say:
State Supreme Court candidate James Daley is voicing a campaign theme that sounds like it might come from someone running for office in another branch of government.

That is, advocating for certain policies.

The Rock County circuit judge, who faces Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in the April 7 election, said on the "Upfront with Mike Gousha" show broacast Sunday:

"Her decisions have consistently been against common-sense reforms such as Act 10, which saved billions to the taxpayers of this state, and also her voter ID decision, which is a common-sense reform, a reform which most states have already made, and without it would leave the electoral system wide open for fraud and abuse."
In his interview, Daley also said that he didn't see the need for justices who were beholden to the special interests - like he would be - to have to recuse themselves from cases involving the same special interests, as long as the money was given "legally."  This is, of course, against the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, which warned of "disproportionate influence."

The choice couldn't be clearer.

We can reelect Ann Walsh Bradley and have a Supreme Court Justice or we can cede more control of our state to the corporate special interests by having yet another supreme court injustice in Daley.

No comments:

Post a Comment