Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The Bitter End

Apparently, Feingold is not the only bitter clinger in Wisconsin.


Billiam said...

I hope Walker doesn't complain about it. Why be like Barry? Just say "I knew what was in store for me when I decided to run. I'm here to fix it." That's how a man does it. Some Dems and Barry aren't aware of that.

Amy said...

Love this:

Even more, Walker can’t even suggest he inherited a problem.

Um, yeah he can. It's called Jim Doyle. Who the *$#^&@ got us into the budget deficit in the first place?!

Anonymous said...

I see, play the Democratic blame game, Amy. Didn't you complain when Democrats made similar accusations toward Bush? And it wasn't solely Doyle, there were his GOP predecessors who also made blunders.

I agree with the link Dad29 provided. Walker better deliver or else. Maybe the GOP controlled legislature will bail him out.

Cindy Kilkenny said...

Hey Dad29. I was going to suggest Scott Walker "man up" and make it happen, but I thought you'd get mad at me.

Oh, well. I hope you'll concede Walker has much to accomplish to deliver on his promises.

Dad29 said...

Maybe the GOP controlled legislature will bail him out

What's that supposed to mean?

The Wisconsin Government has to resolve a $3Bn overdraft left by Jim Doyle and the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED Legislature. That's a helluvalot bigger than the overdraft left by ....oh, yah, Doyle, 3 OTHER times.

No blame. Just fact. Get used to facts for a change, instead of smoking the HopeyChangey dope.

I don't envy Walker. But he could cut about 50% of DNR with no loss to the State, and about 50% of DHSS, too. Then there's a couple of UW campi that could be sold off.

Big problems, big solutions.

Next: cut back school aids to 50%, fuggedabout 60%, and ZERO State aid for building new local schools.

neomom said...

Oh - but the redistricting... tee hee hee!

More than 500 - yep 500 - state legislative seats were picked up by Republicans last night.

That doesn't just help at the Congressional level, but at the State Assembly/Senate level.

Here in my adoptive state, the Rs took control of both the State House and Senate for the first time since... 1870. Our districts are so gerrymandered right now that even though Rs have been getting more total votes in the last several cycles, they have remained in the minority. It took folks $1B in tax increases last year and a $3B hole in the state budget to fight just a little harder this year.

Oh - but the redistricting... tee hee hee!

Anonymous said...

Oh - but the redistricting... tee hee hee!

Good luck with that in the courts.

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

Thats all you little whiny libs have left, anony. A hope and dream in the court system. You are going NOWHERE! How do you like control now, wuss? Take your lawyers and shove em where the sun don't shine.

neomom said...

Not to worry Anony.... We elected conservative judges too!!!

While y'all were focusing almost entirely on the national level and obsessing over Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, we had a ground "Game On" at the State, County, Municiple levels.

Last count - 680 State Legislative seats.

Iowa ditched 3 supreme court judges, NC and WI and many others have a conservative majority with their supremes.

Sucks when the gerrymandering goes the other way doesn't it?

Oh - but the redistricting... tee hee hee!

Anonymous said...

Electing "Constitutional".

Judges ought to be appointed based upon their legal training, education, and experience. The public generally selects the best politician in that circumstance. Moreover, elected judges are not necessarily more qualified than their opponents, but instead the elected judges are the ones with the most campaign money. Once a judge has won an election, he/she becomes indebted to those who contributed to their cause.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves! Through the Constitution, the Founding Fathers created a judicial system with APPOINTED judges because they thought judges ought to be free to implement the law without having to worry about the popularity of their decisions. They recognized that judges have to make tough calls, and should be immune from political pressure to make those calls if beholden to constituents.

Dad29 said...

Another Ignorant Anony pops up to demonstrate that he/she/it can't distinguish between State and Federal constitutions.

Anonymous said...

Another opportunity for Dad29 to shift away from the real issue at hand, the election of judges at the state level.

The Founding Fathers had agreed that the perception of “justice for sale” threatened to undermine the rule of law. Therefore, they provided for judicial appointments at the federal level.

The Constitutions of all 13 former colonies had also reflected that notion.

Dad29 said...

You need cheese, anony.

Whine by itself isn't good for you.

Anonymous said...

By the mid-1800's, states were amending their constitutions to enable judges to run for office. Not surprisingly, these changes were made by the political party in control, in part to advance their agenda.

Roscoe Pound, renowned legal scholar, argued that "putting courts into politics, and compelling judges to become politicians in many jurisdictions...has almost destroyed the traditional respect for the bench".

Why I bother teaching you history, Dad29, is beyond me...

Anonymous said...

"Support and defend the

That's the advice you gave to RO JO.

So I bring forth an argument (judges should be appointed, not elected) that is based on a literal interpretation of that document, and all you say I need cheese with my wine. Nice work!

Dad29 said...

compelling judges to become politicians in many jurisdictions...has almost destroyed the traditional respect for the bench".

Yes, like the respect SCOTUS enjoys post-Roe?

Or the respect SCOTUS got after the despicable "Castrate the Retarded" Justice's comments?

The respect that SCOTUS earned by inventing a "right to privacy"?


neomom said...

Yes, because lifetime appointments work so well too...

Or Loophole Louie to the Federal Bench in Western WI?

Anyone want to put money that Anony here is a supporter of this?

"Underwritten by the American Justice Partnership, the study, Justice Hijacked, examines a coordinated national campaign, funded by Soros, which poses as a grassroots effort and aims to fundamentally reshape America’s state courts. The movement aims to abolish democratic judicial elections and replace them with a system known as “merit selection.” “Merit selection” would end citizen participation in judicial elections and hand judicial selection over to small, unaccountable commissions comprised of legal elites, typically including representatives of state trial lawyers associations. "

Dad29 said...

Gee. Soros. I'm shocked, I tell you.

Oh and I forgot about the "respect" SCOTUS earned by determining that a farmer can't grow corn for HIS OWN USE on HIS OWN LAND b/c it's a violation of the Int'state Commerce Clause.

Yah, those guys are respectable.