Right at the top of Judge Michael Gableman's JS Online chat today is question from a thoughtful conservative:
Q: Dean Mundy of Waukesha - Do you repudiate ads by those who are supporting your election and even your own campaign, that depict your opponent in a manner that most disinterested observers and even some supporters say is false and misleading? Why have you chosen to campaign this way?It's an excellent question, and Gableman takes a higher road in the chat than he did when he authorized the sleaziest ad from a campaign in recent memory. From the tone, you would think that Gableman would be all about the truth, honesty, and above-boardedness.
A: Michael Gableman - I have quite clearly stated that I wish that third party groups would take their interests elsewhere to allow us to have a more positive tone in this election.
But if you thought that, you'd be wrong. From later in the chat:
My opponent has engaged in a consistent track record of judicial activism in which he has substituted policy considerations for the application of the plain language of the law. One example would be my opponent's decision in State v. Knapp, in which my opponent decided to overturn over 150 years of case precedent and to adopt a theory called "New Federalism" under which the rights of the criminals and criminal defendants are limited only by what the four who currently constitute the majority of the court say they ought to be.If only that were true! But the fact is that there is pretty much not a single word of truth in any of that. For starters, calling Justice Louis Butler a judicial activist is a significant misnomer; yeah, it's the dog whistle Gableman supporters want to hear, but it is false. He also offers a novel definition of New Federalism; in fact, as I understand New Federalism, it's something conservatives ought like, as it is an attempt to re-decentralize a lot of the power currently vested in the federal government, including the control the Supreme Court of the United States exerts over state courts. The racist wing of the Republican Party calls it "States' Rights."
In any case, Knapp was not an expression of New Federalism, States' Rights, or any other Capital Letter Ideology. I defer to an attorney to explain:
[F]ar from ignoring either [SCOTUS precendents] Patane or Seibert, Butler devoted nearly one-third of the majority opinion's 46 pages to an in-depth discussion of both cases--in fact, the entire opinion can fairly be said to have been informed by Patane and Seibert [. . .].You will have to read all of the post for the details; suffice it to say, contrary to what Gableman's supporters--and Gableman himself--would have you believe, nothing in Knapp deviates one iota from what SCOTUS precedent allows.
And, as long as I'm pointing you to the illusory tenant, he has this week done yeoman's work to eviscerate the claims of Gableman and his surrogates that Justice Butler is inordinately "pro-criminal." Go reward his efforts by reading and committing to memory the work he's done. Start at the top and just read down.