tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post1900264965297696314..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: The elusiveness of reform, part 1.Rick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38817055963776397552012-06-25T10:17:01.585-05:002012-06-25T10:17:01.585-05:00George says, "That's especially ironic in...George says, "That's especially ironic in Wisconsin, where many of the problems with our Supreme Court can be traced to an justice who initially was appointed."<br /><br />So says the hyper-partisan. The election of Supreme Court judges in Wisconsin has been a complete farce.<br />Both sides are acting like spoiled brats. <br /><br />www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol19No2/Nichols19.2.html<br /><br />Perhaps it is time to reexamine whether judges should run for public office.<br /><br />www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_new_politics_of_judicial_elections/<br /><br /><br />Rick says, "If you ask a group of people to do something that is inherently partisan and political, the group will tend to become partisan and political..."<br /><br />Possible, but NOT probable. The situation depends upon HOW that group is put together. The model is the Congressional Budget Office.<br /><br />"Those who are intensely interested in the process will attempt to capture the "non-partisan" agency and they will often succeed."<br /><br />HOW? You make a blanket statement, then fail to back it up. Mere opinion. I suggest you provide specific examples. If the process of selecting those who will serve in the group meets certain criteria, i.e. a governor must appoint three (R)'s and three (D)'s and it must be agreed upon by the Legislature, then it would appear your point is moot. The PROCESS matters.<br /><br /><br />"It is unclear that a supposedly "non-partisan" commission would do any better or that we would even have a standard by which to assess that question. Politics would still be there. We'd just have a harder time seeing it."<br /><br />The PROCESS matters, i.e. HOW a decision is arrived. A non-partisan group STILL has to provide reports to the public. A non-partisan group STILL will be subject to public scrutiny. Care to elaborate "how we will have a harder time seeing it"?<br /><br />Regardless, the professor seems to have selective memory regarding why there should be a revisiting how districts are redrawn. Did Democrats in Wisconsin ever made nondisclosure agreements during the redistricting process? Did Democrats in Wisconsin ever used attorney-client privilege as a tool to blur the lines between political advice and legal advice during the redistricting process?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-47334209194071682362012-06-25T08:42:21.501-05:002012-06-25T08:42:21.501-05:00Ah, the siren song of "non-partisanship."...Ah, the siren song of "non-partisanship." The same issues arise when the smarter among us want to end the election of Supreme Court judges. That's especially ironic in Wisconsin, where many of the problems with our Supreme Court can be traced to an justice who initially was appointed.George Mitchellnoreply@blogger.com