tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post7383935793272376264..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: More on the WJCICRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-64213760880653479942008-01-23T22:21:00.000-06:002008-01-23T22:21:00.000-06:00So, what good comes with electing our judges???So, what good comes with electing our judges???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-67051719818218945622008-01-23T12:45:00.000-06:002008-01-23T12:45:00.000-06:00Notwithstanding "its" ad hominem attacks on them ....<I>Notwithstanding "its" ad hominem attacks on them ...</I><BR/><BR/>Wha? I said they didn't appear to understand what <I>ad hominem</I> is, otherwise they wouldn't have (1) made a parallel reference to "scurrilous smears" or (2) used the expression "ad hominem attacks" which, according to the most charitable reading, is redundant. <BR/><BR/>An <I>ad hominem</I> would be: "They are silk stockinged, white collar corporate counsel, therefore their arguments are worthless." Unless you consider "silk stockinged, white collar corporate counsel" a scurrilous smear. I don't, but I suppose others might.<BR/><BR/><I>it -<BR/>Your response could be easily argued that your candidates argument is allowable but that the opponents argument is not.</I><BR/><BR/>Er, wha? No, I said that pointing out Ziegler's ethical lapses is merely a statement of the record, and then, in contrast, I gave an example of an <I>ad hominem</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-64714940963247419532008-01-23T12:32:00.000-06:002008-01-23T12:32:00.000-06:00The larger problem is accepting the authority of t...The larger problem is accepting the authority of this committee as arbiters of what this agreement or the SCRs require. I would think that application of the SCRs to ban saying what Schmitz said would be unconstitutional.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-73293328542713835212008-01-23T12:21:00.000-06:002008-01-23T12:21:00.000-06:00from anony 6:23it - Your response could be easily ...from anony 6:23<BR/><BR/>it - <BR/><BR/>Your response could be easily argued that your candidates argument is allowable but that the opponents argument is not. <BR/><BR/>I think that we should know if we are placing honorable people into honorable positions, or, if the honorable position has been dishonored by its holder. <BR/><BR/>It hasn't gone unnoticed that lawyers, who should know the judges best of all are silent during campaigns. Now we have the State Bar setting up shop to monitor speech? <BR/><BR/>I think all should be done to make it possible to allow lawyers to speak up during the campaigns because that is what the public wants to hear. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the SCR's, I thought some of them were ruled unconstitutional and that judicial candidates had much freedom to discuss there personal positions. Have those been corrected?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38797707920967036302008-01-23T10:55:00.000-06:002008-01-23T10:55:00.000-06:00Notwithstanding "its" ad hominem attacks on them, ...Notwithstanding "its" ad hominem attacks on them, I think the op ed writers have a point. And it's always worth making a fuss when someone tries to limit political speech and keep information from the voters, especially when it's the head of the state lawyers' guild, who should know better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-57239210619004071912008-01-23T08:20:00.000-06:002008-01-23T08:20:00.000-06:00As the headline writer for the op-ed noted, an ele...As the headline writer for the op-ed noted, an element of the controversy comes from the WJCIC being a project of the State Bar. <BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=200740&template=/cm/contentdisplay.cfm&contentfileid=8655" REL="nofollow">minutes</A> of the August 17, 2007 meeting of the State Bar's Professionalism Committee included this in State Bar President Thomas Basting's presentation on a Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee.<BR/><BR/>"These oversight committees are 501c3s, are independent, and are non-profits with no affiliation to the bar or Supreme Court.<BR/> <BR/>...<BR/> <BR/>"Any campaign oversight committee / task force formed would be a separate, independent, permanent group. Its funding would come from a variety of sources; such as grants."Terrence Berreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02867275234105879358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-25748520439510431112008-01-23T07:40:00.000-06:002008-01-23T07:40:00.000-06:00Anony, I wasn't following the campaign that closel...Anony, I wasn't following the campaign that closely, so I can't speak to specific accusations. But, Ziegler <I>did</I> violate the ethics guidelines in her former incarnation as a circuit judge, and that certainly goes to the question of her suitability for higher office.<BR/><BR/>As for Clifford, it depends on the context. If Clifford makes an argument and her opponent attempts to discount that argument simply by pointing out Clifford is a liberal and a trial lawyer (horror of horrors) and that her argument must be discounted on those bases, then that is pretty much a textbook <I>ad hominem</I> fallacy. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I don't see anything in this <A HREF="http://www.wifaircourts.com/Agreement.html" REL="nofollow">agreement</A> prohibiting logical fallacies. (If it did, the entire right-wing blogosphere would be effectively silenced.)<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Whether anybody signs the agreement or not, both Butler and Gableman are, by definition, bound by the SCRs. And, as I said, the agreement imposes no heightened restrictions beyond those of the SCRs. It's simply an acknowledgment, and a reminder, to keep it clean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-82822063949590322102008-01-23T06:23:00.000-06:002008-01-23T06:23:00.000-06:00it - In the last election, Ziegler attack Clifford...it - <BR/><BR/>In the last election, Ziegler attack Clifford as being a liberal and a supporter of trial lawyers, while Clifford attack Ziegler as being an unethical rule breaker. <BR/><BR/>Which one was fallicious? And, which one should the committee challenge or stifle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-66817836074651033522008-01-22T21:09:00.000-06:002008-01-22T21:09:00.000-06:00Nothing in that pledge proscribes speech to a degr...Nothing in that pledge proscribes speech to a degree any greater than do the SCRs already (which are more restrictive against the incumbent, incidentally). <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, sub 5. would have the effect of initiating more speech, not less.<BR/><BR/>Attempts to characterize this committee's activities as "stifling speech" are disingenuous at best.<BR/><BR/>Most astonishingly, none of the four lawyer signatories appears to know what an <I>ad hominem</I> fallacy is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-18476049040051732652008-01-22T16:24:00.000-06:002008-01-22T16:24:00.000-06:00After reading the article Sunday morning, it was t...After reading the article Sunday morning, it was the first time I was moved in a long time to think that there are lawyers that are willing to speak out on important issues. <BR/><BR/>It wasn't long ago that a survey said that confidence in goverment was at an all time low. I think stifling free speech would only make it worse. <BR/><BR/>The public should hear it all and I hope that you and your "colleagues and friends" are not the only ones taking this position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-72403816506134780752008-01-22T11:48:00.000-06:002008-01-22T11:48:00.000-06:00I wonder if the WJCIC will require that one of the...I wonder if the WJCIC will require that one of the candidates publicly disavow your blog posting on the grounds that is unfair/false/offensive/etc?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-76301277638971879362008-01-22T10:14:00.000-06:002008-01-22T10:14:00.000-06:00How can we, as voters, short of pulling up each de...How can we, as voters, short of pulling up each decision and trying to interpret them ourselves, become informed of each candidate's judicial history and philosophy if past rulings cannot be critically looked at and questioned?<BR/><BR/>In this case, I would expect rulings from both Butler and Gableman to be analyzed. Having a candidate simply state, "I hold X philosophy" isn't going to cut it, especially if their record shows otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com