OBJECTIVITY RULES: A partisan judiciary
No one should be happy with the results in Wisconsin
Objectivity Rules: April 4, 2025
This week in Objectivity Rules:
Partisan judges are more dangerous than Trump
Playing with a man’s life
The Washington Post said what?
Susan Crawford, a Democrat, won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court this past Tuesday by beating Republican Brad Schimel.
No one should be happy with the outcome.
The race was the most expensive state Supreme Court race ever because Elon Musk sank $25 million into it to get Schimel elected. Along the way, Musk framed the contest in apocalyptic terms, saying the outcome would impact the future of Western civilization.
There will be lots of analysis on whether the race is an anti-Donald Trump (unlikely) or anti-Musk (likely) referendum. Anytime a billionaire comes into a Midwestern state and starts throwing around money like cheap confetti, people notice (and don’t like it).
Neither Trump nor Musk is the issue. The politicization of the judiciary is.
Judges in Wisconsin are supposed to be nonpartisan, but you wouldn’t know it. Crawford ran on a liberal platform and Schimel conservative. Crawford’s win keeps a narrow 4-3 majority for Democrats, which liberals cheer.
They shouldn’t.
JUDGES SHOULD RULE BASED ON THE LAW
Too often, plaintiffs judge shop to get a favorable ruling. And too often, we have judges who make liberal or conservative rulings based on a biased interpretation of the law.
Judges, at all levels, need to use legal doctrine to support their actions. Partisan judges are a step below politicians because they make rulings that impact programs across the entire country, and could do so for years or decades. (Remember, it took 50 years for the court to overturn Roe).
Instead of rejoicing because Wisconsin keeps a liberal court, voters should look with suspicion at what’s happening to the state judiciary and how future rulings might play out. If the judges vote as a block, the conservatives will always lose —- even if they have the better (and non-biased) legal argument. You can be sure that when (not if) conservatives retake the court, they’ll issue a ruling favorable to the GOP. What’s good for the goose…
It would be nice if states could prohibit judges from taking stands on political issues, remove their party designations from the ballot, and limit campaigning to how they’re ruled on past issues. That won’t happen since someone will rightfully yell about violating free speech.
Judicial shopping and partisan judges pose a bigger threat to Democracy than Donald Trump. One way or the other, he’ll be gone in three-plus years. Some judges stay forever, and they can affect law that impacts the entire country far longer than Trump can.
MORE THAN A MISTAKE
Last week, ICE arrested a Maryland father, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, and deported him to a notorious El Salvador prison. ICE first claimed Garcia had M013 gang connections, but then said, Oh no, we made a mistake. The administration said Garcia should not have been deported and said an “administrative error” and should never have been arrested, let alone sent to the vicious CECOT prison known for its human rights abuses.
You would expect that the administration would do anything it can to bring Garcia, who is here legally, back to his wife, child, and extended family.
But in an inhuman twist, the government opposes an attempt to return him to the states because of his alleged gang ties, which his family denies.
I’m sorry, that’s a load of horesshit. The government should fix its mistakes, not blow them off, especially in this case, because they’re playing with a man’s life. Garcia has been in that hellhole of a jail for more than three weeks. There’s finally a court hearing today to try to make the government leverage its relationship with El Salvador to get him back.
Why does it take a court order to do the right thing?
BOILERPLATE
I wrote recently that I cancelled my Washington Post subscription because Jeff Bezos mandated what topics the opinion page can write about. I’ve been getting a number of subscription solicitations from the Post, so I sent them a note that said:
I like reading the Washington Post. I will resubscribe when Jeff Bezos stops interfering with the editorial page. I want to read a wide variety of opinions, not just what some billionaire wants me to read. Have a good day.
In 27 minutes, I got this:
Thank you for contacting us.
For 148 years, The Washington Post has committed its pages to covering and holding power to account. Our Newsroom remains dedicated to independent reporting and fact-based journalism. Our Opinion pages will now focus on the pillars of free markets and personal liberties, two underserved viewpoints in the current market of ideas and news opinion. We look forward to continuing to be a publication for all of America.
It’s a nice boilerplate response that says a whole lot of nothing.
ODDS AND ENDS
On Meet the Press, President Trump mused about seeking a third term, which is constitutionally prohibited. Expect to hear more about his supporters, and expect Trump to egg them on. He loves the attention … No surprise, but a new poll shows Americans from both parties want Trump to focus on prices, not tariffs. Trump shows no signs of heeding that advice … Trump also, on Meet the Press, said he didn’t care if his tariffs resulted in higher car prices. But he will care if his policies threaten his House Majority … Republicans in Florida kept two House seats in a special election, despite breathless (liberal) media coverage of a possible flip. It was never going to happen given overwhelming Republican registrations in the districts … Trump announced his new tariff plan, and the market sank. The impact on real people will be felt in the next month as the tariffs take effect. What a mess … A federal judge has signaled he will likely find the White House in contempt of his order to stop deporting Venezuelan immigrants. If he does, what does that mean? … There’s some breathless coverage on Trump firing six NSC staffers because they weren’t loyal enough. but other presidents have done the same ….
Until next time …..
Ray Marcano has more than 40 years of experience as a reporter, editor, executive, and leader. He’s worked for some of the country’s biggest brands, including CNN, ESPN’s Andcape, and USAToday. His award-winning column appears each Sunday in the Dayton (OH) Daily News, and he’s a frequent contributor to the Columbus (OH) Dispatch. He’s the former national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, a two-time Pulitzer juror, and a Fulbright Fellow. He also writes the free, monthly Bourbon Resource with the latest bourbon news and reviews.
Nice! I like the focus on the judiciary - and I agree that partisanship cannot be allowed to factor in to legal decision-making. However, I think there’s a nuance here that’s important to note. You said that “Judges, at all levels, need to use legal doctrine to support their actions” and this should be an unarguable, axiomatic principle. But what happens when legal doctrine leads to support, for example, for a position that is ALSO a plank position for a party platform? That position can be / becomes used as a litmus test… and the judge gets categorized as a partisan. However, the reality in this (not entirely) hypothetical case is that the legal position was sound, and fully in accord with bedrock constitutional principles - partisanship had nothing to do with it, and should not be expected to be a factor in future legal decision-making. Now imagine that every legal argument you’ve ever made is viewed through the lens of “Party” - it’s impossible to escape getting tagged along party lines, regardless of the basis for your legal arguments, or the reasons you were in a position to make them. I suppose what I’m suggesting is that the risk to the judiciary is only when a Justice gives “Party” any weight in their decision-making, allowing legal argument to be influenced by who is making it, who is paying for it, or which side favors it. It’s a tricky thing to prove (e.g., US Supreme Court) but it’s an important distinction to make, as there are a great many honest Judges and aspiring Judges out there, and any position the population votes on is viewed through this Party lens. But Party is no more ALL of who they are, especially in their workplace and product, than it is for any of us.