Merrick Garland Deserves a Vote—For Democracy’s Sake

By President Barack Obama 

For more than 40 years, there has been an average of just over two months between a president’s nominating someone to the Supreme Court and that person’s receiving a hearing in Congress. It has now been more than four months since I nominated Merrick Garland,chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—and Congress left town for a seven-week recess without giving him a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote.

This is much more serious than your typical case of Washington dysfunction. And if we allow it to continue, the consequences of congressional inaction could weaken our most important institutions, erode public trust and undermine our democracy.

Every Supreme Court nominee since 1875 who hasn’t withdrawn from the process has received a hearing or a vote. Even when the nominee was controversial. Even when the Senate and the White House were held by different parties.

But Chief Judge Garland isn’t controversial. He has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in our history. He is widely respected by people of both political parties as a man of experience, integrity and unimpeachable qualifications. The partisan decision of Senate Republicans to deny a hearing to a judge who has served his country with honor and dignity is not just an insult to a good man—it is an unprecedented escalation of the stakes. It threatens the very process by which we nominate judges, regardless of who our next president is. And it should concern every American who cares about the rule of law and upholding the institutions that make our democracy work.

Here’s why. Historically, when a president nominates a Supreme Court justice—regardless of when in the presidential term this occurs—the Senate is obligated to act. Senators are free to vote their conscience. But they vote. That’s their job.

If Republicans in the Senate refuse even to consider a nominee in the hopes of running out the clock until they can elect a president from their own party, so that he can nominate his own justice to the Supreme Court, then they will effectively nullify the ability of any president from the opposing party to make an appointment to the nation’s highest court. They would reduce the very functioning of the judicial branch of the government to another political leverage point.

We cannot allow the judicial confirmation process to descend into an endless cycle of political retaliation. There would be no path to fill a vacancy for the highest court in the land. The process would stall. Court backlogs would grow. An entire branch of government would be unable to fulfill its constitutional role. And some of the most important questions of our time would go unanswered.

This is troubling for two reasons. First, a functioning judiciary—at every level—is essential to the business of the nation. For example, last month, a deadlocked Supreme Court was unable to reach a decision on several major issues, leaving the law itself in limbo. Across the country, judicial vacancies are leaving some lower courts so overwhelmed they can barely make it through their dockets. Twenty-nine judicial emergencies have been declared by lower courts across the country. This has real implications for jurisprudence, real financial costs to the judicial system and real consequences in the lives of people awaiting the outcomes of those cases.

Second, treating the Supreme Court like a political football makes the American people more cynical about democracy. When the Supreme Court becomes a proxy for political parties, public confidence in the notion of an impartial, independent judiciary breaks down. And the resulting lack of trust can undermine the rule of law.

So here’s an idea. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate could agree to give Chief Judge Garland a hearing when they return from their extended recess, while also committing to give every future qualified Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote within an established time frame. It’s a good idea that my predecessor, President George W. Bush, suggested during his time in office. This reasonable proposal would prevent the confirmation process from breaking down beyond repair, and help restore good faith between the two parties.

In my travels around the world as president, I have seen how hard democracy is—how it takes more than a proclamation or even an election. Democracies depend on the institutions we build, the rules upon which the nation is founded, and the traditions, customs and habits of heart that guide our behavior and ensure that political differences never override the founding ideals that bind us. And it is on us—all of us—to preserve and protect them.

Now we need Congress to act. We need senators to demonstrate that, once again, America has the capacity to rise above disagreements and maintain a fidelity to the values that, for 240 years, have made this extraordinary experiment a success. That’s what the American people deserve—and it’s what makes ours the greatest country the world has ever known.

Bradley's Bungles

By Jeff Simpson 

Here at CogDis, we have been bringing you the story of how Republican Supreme Court Nominee Rebecca Bradley is an empty suit and is being pushed to the Supreme Court to do Walker's bidding, and not because of her qualifications.  

As we have seen over time, the Supreme Court holds more power than anyone and its imperative that it stop being a dysfunctioning den full of Michael Grebe's employees ordered to give Scott Walker cover.  

The thing about Ms. Bradley is it is so obvious that she is strictly a Walker crony that we could write a story everyday about what she did that day to flash her incompetence.  

For instance we know that she feels its ok to lie in her campaign advertisements.  As the Wisconsin Republicans so often do, Ms. Bradley realized if she can get away with lying in her campaign ads, why not turn it up a notch.   Now her campaign has been push polling people in this race.

For those that do not know what a push poll is,   Wikipedia says a “push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering” and is an attempt “to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll.”    

For example, the George W Bush campaign used a push poll when they were competing gainst John McCain.  They called people and said "would you vote for John McCain if you knew he was the father of bastard children(his children were adopted)?"   See they ask a hypothetical as if it is true to put doubt in voters minds.  Its a despicable practice and one perfected by the Republican slime machine.    

Secondly, there is Ms. Bradley's performance itself.   In the first case she heard, she had no problem ruling against the defendant, despite the fact that she was not on the court to hear the original arguments.   

Justice Rebecca Bradley's first decision on a case since joining the Wisconsin Supreme Court in October has created a little buzz -- and she didn't even write an opinion.
Bradley's tie-breaking vote in a 4-3 ruling that broadly interpreted a doctrine that lets police use evidence seized without a warrant has come under fire from the defendant who would otherwise have won the case.
Charles Matalonis contends Bradley's vote violated his rights to due process and equal protection, and left the appearance that Bradley was biased toward law enforcement groups who are backing her current campaign for election to the job.
Earlier, the state Court of Appeals had agreed to suppress evidence - a marijuana plant - that Kenosha police found after entering Matalonis' locked bedroom without a search warrant.  A 3-3 tie on the high court would have affirmed that ruling.
Bradley wasn't on the court when it heard oral argument in the case, and she had abstained from several other decisions the court issued on cases heard before her appointment Oct. 9, to replace Justice Patrick Crooks, who died Sept. 21.
But she formed a majority to reverse the prior ruling on Matalonis, on the grounds that police were not investigating a crime when they discovered the plant, but were exercising a "community caretaker" function, making sure no injured person was inside the room. They had followed a blood trail to Matalonis' house after his brother, who had clearly been beaten, arrived at a neighbor's house.

That decision was so successful, that Ms. Bradley now feels she does not have to be there for any of the arguments as she took off in the middle of one recently to go affirm to the Wisconsin Chamber of Commerce that she will rule however she is told to rule!  

MADISON, Wis. -Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley left oral arguments in a pending case before they had concluded so she could give a speech to the state chamber of commerce, a group that's spent heavily in past court elections in favor of conservative candidates.

Ms. Bradley only makes $147,403/yr with Cadillac Benefits, you can not expect her to do her job with such paltry pay.   Besides the Republicans have made it clear to her that she is there to serve them not us!    

If this frustrates someone who feels the rule of law should trumo a political ideology, then I would recommend going to see Ms. Bradley at one of her campaign appearances.  It will cost you though, because the best place to find her would be at a Republican Legislator fundraiser.   

Here is Scott Walker pulling her strings at a press conference.    

For the Good of Wisconsin and the Future for our children, lets elect someone who takes the law seriously and is not beholden to extreme ideology - Vote Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg!   

Vote Judge Kloppenburg

"I have background and backbone a justice needs" Judge Kloppenburg 

This campaign is about the future of our Supreme Court, what kind of court it ought to be and what kind of justices we ought to elect to the court. The court ought to be a place where justice is done without fear or favor. We must elect justices who have the courage and skill to stand up against the partisan politics and special interests that have no place on the court.

On Feb. 16, we have a tremendous opportunity to choose a new justice for our Supreme Court. To take advantage of that opportunity we need the right candidate.

We need a candidate who is a strong, clear alternative to Gov. Walker’s choice, Rebecca Bradley.

Gov. Walker appointed Rebecca Bradley three times to three judgeships in three years. One of her conservative supporters wrote to Walker: “Rebecca … will receive the strong support of conservatives. She has paid her dues. That will not be forgotten.”

The other candidate, Joe Donald, supported Rebecca Bradley twice. He endorsed Bradley after Gov. Walker appointed her to Circuit Court. Then, last year, he served as a reference for Bradley’s application to Gov. Walker for her second judicial appointment. When asked by a reporter why he supported Rebecca Bradley, Donald said, “The only thing I can tell you is that I got bamboozled.”

Voters expect — and deserve — justices who cannot be “bamboozled” by the partisan agendas that threaten the ability of our court to function as an independent check and balance on the other branches of government. I alone was first elected, not appointed, to the bench.

We also need a candidate who has the best qualifications. I am the presiding judge on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District 4. My colleagues chose me as presiding judge because they respect my ability to encourage the best from everyone, efficiently conduct the court’s business, and respectfully handle issues that arise.

I have a proven track record as an independent, fair and thoughtful appellate judge. I have issued hundreds of written decisions. Rebecca Bradley has issued several. Joe Donald has never written an appellate decision.

Before being elected to the Court of Appeals, I was an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice for 23 years, handling hundreds of cases in courts around the state at all levels.

Finally, in order to elect a new justice, we need a candidate who knows what it takes to run a statewide campaign. In 2011, I earned 750,000 votes in one of the highest turnout elections ever in a Supreme Court race. I had much support: People of all political stripes, working men and women, judges, law enforcement professionals, attorneys, community leaders all came together during that campaign.

I am building on that support. I am the only candidate who has visited all 72 counties during this campaign. Wisconsin residents from every county are publicly endorsing our campaign, including former Congressman Dave Obey from Wausau, civil rights pioneer Vel Phillips from Milwaukee, and former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk.

There is no other candidate in this race who matches the breadth and depth of my judicial and legal experience. There is no other candidate who matches my ability to reach out, statewide, and build the strong, grassroots network it takes to win this race.

I am the only candidate in this race who has both the background and the backbone to win this campaign and to stand up, as a justice on our Supreme Court, to the partisan politics and unregulated special interests that have no place on the court.

I would be honored by your vote on Feb. 16.

Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg is a candidate for justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Joe Donald Doesn't Merit Your Support

By Jeff Simpson

We have reported before on the upcoming Supreme Court race (primary on February 16th) especially in terms of the Walker flunky - Rebecca Bradley.  Bradley, who was not even a judge before 2010, has been on the fast track of getting appointed to new positions by Scott Walker.  While Ms. Bradley likes to tell people she is an independent, her works speak louder than her words, and we all know that to be complete bull.



Most people who care about the law, and are not bitter partisans, would be disgusted by this blatant show of partisanship by a Judge.  However there is one prominent person that has supported Ms. Bradley through the years - Joe Donald(her primary opponent).  

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Joe Donald, one of two candidates vying to unseat Justice Rebecca Bradley on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, endorsed Bradley's 2013 campaign to remain on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court and served as a reference for her application to the 1st District Court of Appeals in 2015.

So why would an "impartial" Judge give  glowing recommendation to a bitterly partisan Judge who has not earned her own stripes and is just there to do Scott Walker's bidding?  

The answer from the campaign is probably the worst possible answer they can give:

"Joe usually, unless he has a serious problem with the person, usually supports the incumbents. Left, right, doesn’t matter," Suchorski said. "That was primarily it: as a fellow incumbent judge, he supported her."

Let's look at that again and really let it sink in:

 "Joe usually, unless he has a serious problem with the person, usually supports the incumbents. Left, right, doesn’t matter," Suchorski said. "That was primarily it: as a fellow incumbent judge, he supported her."

The Donald campaign is telling us that Judge Donald's word means absolutely nothing.   That Judge Donald has decided if you have the job of Judge you might as well have it forever and it does not matter how qualified you are (or are not), Judge Donald will write you a recommendation.  

Many positions rely on recommendations in hiring qualified people.  If you recommend people who you feel are not qualified you are doing a great disservice to the people who are being recommended, the people looking to hire and your own reputation?

According to Donald's campaign manager, Mr. Donald does not care about any of the above issues and will just give anyone a standard recommendation that asks.  

How does that laziness, and lack of effort translate into how he will research a tough issue and rule on it according to the law?

That is up to you to decide, but in my mind it is very troubling.

That is why I support Judge Kloppenburg to be our next Supreme Court Justice!!!  


 

Rebecca Bradley -The Do Nothing Republican Judge

By Jeff Simpson

Rebecca Bradley, the interim Supreme Court Justice, who has made a living out of being appointed to better jobs frequently by Scott Walker, has apparently taken up Walker's work ethic.

One Wisconsin Now, recently did an open records request for her calendars when she was the sitting(and sitting is an apt description here) judge in her previous positions.   After much delay she finally gave up her schedule to OWN and for 2 1/2 years her calendar was empty.

Responding to an open records request from a liberal group, the newly appointed conservative justice provided monthly calendars that suggested she had no official business— other than the cases she was hearing —for 29 straight months. 

A quick look at her bio and we see that she really has done nothing in her career.  Here is her extensive career public service record:

Other public service: Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge, 2015 (appointed); Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge 2012-15 (appointed); Wisconsin State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

You will not run out of ink printing that out...It makes sense though, because she has no criminal law experience either.

To compare/contrast here is her opponent the Honorable JoAnne Kloppenburg 

Other public service: Board member, Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (2014-present); member, Wisconsin Court System Planning and Policy Advisory Committee (2014-present); speaker to bench and bar groups around the state and at conferences around the country (1993-present); volunteer faculty, University of Wisconsin Law School intensive skills course (1992-present); volunteer judge (quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals) for University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette University Law School moot courts, and for Wisconsin High School Mock Trial Tournament (2011-present); mentor, Dane County Bar Association and University of Wisconsin Law School (2011-present); coordinator and adjunct instructor, University of Wisconsin Law School Department of Justice extern program (1995-2012); volunteer mediator, Dane County Bar Association (2010-2012); volunteer attorney, Dane County foreclosure clinic (2010-2012); board member, Wisconsin Legal Action (1991-1993)

I guess Ms. Bradley is too busy attending Republican fund raisers to worry about serving the actual public.

Ms. Bradley could not even get her own nomination papers signed, she enlisted the WISGOP to do that for her(not that she will be beholden to them if she wins).

Shining the spotlight on Ms. Bradley, with continuous bigger appointments, have shown that she is out of her league in this realm.

Rebecca bradley also opposed the clean campaign pledge, pushed by the state bar association, to keep the campaign clean and focused on the issues.   This I do not fault her on though, I think she is not opposed to running a clean campaign, just too lazy to actually do anything about it.

Things are getting so bad, Mike assigned Christian Schneider to try and run to her defense.

In a position as important as the Supreme Court, and with our Supreme Court already a laughing stock of corruption in legal circles, and an embarrassment to our state, do we really want to elect yet another Walker patsy to sit on the highest court in Wisconsin???

James Daley - Bitter Partisan

By Jeff Simpson

Capper wrote a great piece recently about why James Daley will not win the election tomorrow for Supreme Court against Justice Bradley.  

However a picture is worth a thousand words:

 As hate talker and cop hitter Vicki Mckenna tweets:

Look who came to watch the @UWBadgers ‪#‎FinalFour‬! @JudgeDaley! ‪#‎VoteDaleyApril7‬ ‪#‎VoteYesOn1‬

The other person is Brian Schimming who was high level in the Wisconsin Republican party but recently appointed by Scott Walker as COO of WHEDA to soak the taxpayers for Cadillac benefits and $128,000/yr.   

Can a judge be that dishonest that he would claim to be "non partisan" and hang out daily with bitter partisans like these two?   Do we really want someone in the highest court who thinks a day with Vicki Mckenna is a good day? 

Vote Ann Walsh Bradley as if your state depends on it.  It does.

Hindsite is 20/20

By Jeff Simpson

With the opening of the George W Bush Presidential library, we keep revisiting his presidency.Now retired Justice Sandra Day O Conner is weighing in:

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed doubt Friday about the decision to take the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that resulted in the election of President George W. Bush.

"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," O'Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board in an interview. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"

"Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision," she said. "It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn't done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."

The Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount on Dec. 8, 2000, of all Florida votes in the 2000 presidential election between Vice President Al Gore and Bush, then the governor of Texas. But a 5-4 Supreme Court majority, including O'Connor, ordered an injunction the next day. The Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 12 in a decision "limited to the present circumstances" that the Florida recount was unconstitutional, giving Bush the presidency.

Justice John Paul Stevens has also joined the "we messed up" bandwagon!

Occasionally, Rick Perry is Pro Life!

Texas Governor Rick Perry is Pro-Life, he even signed a letter stating so.  




Perry also loves himself some Jesus, he even made a commercial to tell us all about it:




 Now Rick Perry, acting in Jesus's name, can not wait to execute Marvin Wilson, who has been found to have a 61 IQ. i know the Supreme Court has banned it, but Rick Perry is doing God's will!