Sunday, April 06, 2008

Ads & Judicial Elections

There is little doubt that Americans are assaulted by aggressive advertising at just about every waking moment. With the exception of some few who are totally deficient in mental process, I think it fair to write that most of us have developed a certain immunity to such attacks and the ability to sort out from them the essentials we need to make the best decisions among the offered products.

Those who bemoan the recent advertisements in the election for a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court grossly underestimate the intelligence of our citizens. This is the stock reaction to the usually left-wing elitists (Among editors, politicians, columnists and other pundits) towards any of their fellow citizens who might dare to disagree with them---Even to the position of State Representative Fred Kessler who now wishes that we lumpen not be allowed to select judges by democratic voting and related process.

However, it is fair to note that judicial candidates are essentially forbidden to directly address those matters of public law and policy as are important to the people-at-large, legislators and the courts.
Rather that rely on such ads as we have seen in the last two State Supreme Court elections OR on such poorly defined terms as "character", "liberal", "conservative" and the like, those candidates should be allowed to publish-and-proclaim their general positions and policies as to the essential and important questions of the day Their responses (Especially if published on a side-by-side basis) to such questions would give the voters a much clearer understanding of the candidates and what they stand for than what we have experienced in the past! [Below you will find a list of some such questions as might be asked of candidates for election to Wisconsin's Supreme and other courts-of-appeal.]


1. Do you support or oppose the use of "affirmative action" quotas, goals and set-asides for members of such sub-classes of citizens who have or might-have suffered the effects of discrimination in the past, even if they as individuals did not suffer any such direct impact?
2. Do you support or oppose the contention that Article-1, Section-25 of Wisconsin's Constitution as provides for the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes requires the government to allow sane, adult and law-abiding citizens to carry weapons either openly or concealed with or without any permit to carry concealed weapons?
3. Do you oppose or support the positions that any seizure of private property under the use of "eminent domain" must be for the direct use of government agencies or purposes as for building of roads, strictly public buildings, etc.?
4. Do you oppose or support the concept that any government agency which has the power to impose taxes must be governed by a body or board directly elected by the People?

No comments: