JoAnne Kloppenburg declares victory over David Prosser, and Scott Walker

• You wrote: "I'm sorry, I was talking about the person whom actually won and now is a judge." Yeah, I got that. My point was that Prosser (the incumbent) did everything that you objected to about Kloppenburg. I guess that went over your head. And Kloppenburg isn't a SC judge yet. The certification isn't even done, much less the recount, and she hasn't been sworn into office. They are BOTH judges, btw. One is on the SC (Prosser), though. You should try facts one of these days. You wrote: "If ALL the readers here can't see there is a major problem with partisanship influencing a judge, well you clearly have no clue as to the roll of a court." So, you are okay with the *incumbent* announcing before the election that he will be partisan if he wins. And if Prosser would have won, it seems as if this wouldn't be a "major problem" in your mind. Try to remember this before you complain about hypocrisy in the future, because you just proved that you are an unequivocal hypocrite. And the word is "role", O jackass-who-calls-everyone-stupid. "And DOMA, I was wrong on that one." You probably got the info from some 'unbiased' source, much like the talking points that you parrot on a regular basis. You should try facts one of these days. "my snarpy point to that article months ago, was Obama undid Bill Clinton's law (DOMA)" ...and as Van Denburg showed with graphs, public opinion has dramatically changed on the issue since Clinton was in office. That also went over your head. Also, current polling shows only 22% of Democrats object to some sort of civil union or marriage for gays. Hardly "unrest". That's a smaller number than the percentage of Republicans that disapprove of Congressional Republicans. You should try facts one of these days. "I still believe the photo of JoAnne supplied above looks WAY MORE like a man in drag than a woman." Nobody cares, Kirk.

• I'm sorry, I was talking about the person whom actually won and now is a judge. I was regurgitating a liberal talking point from TV a few day's ago when there was a possibility of Prosser winning. Oh how the show host thought they had a "trump card" to recuse any one with opinion. As a conservative/libertarian I say; GOOD IDEA you had there, Mr. Liberal Talk host. Should have kept your mouth shut because now that brilliant legal tactic will be used against her. If ALL the readers here can't see there is a major problem with partisanship influencing a judge, well you clearly have no clue as to the roll of a court. And DOMA, I was wrong on that one. The US Supreme Court refused to hear arguments by the gays as to it's constitutionality. It was several State Supreme Courts that up held the law. Some states even passed complementary amendments to their State Constitutions to make it absolute law within that state because of pending lawsuits. The gays were challenging DOMA as if it violated the constitution of the state in which they lived. Get this; on DOMA liberals and the gays favored "States Rights". Then, the same people believe roe vs wade was absolute and should NEVER be challenged by a state. (anti states rights) And green23, my snarpy point to that article months ago, was Obama undid Bill Clinton's law (DOMA) and is feeding the unrest and separation in the demarat party. Liberal hero vs. Socialist zero... Much like a bad comic book. By the way, I still believe the photo of JoAnne supplied above looks WAY MORE like a man in drag than a woman. Does he/she have a adam's apple?

• Prosser also said that he supported Walker's plan, and that he would be a "complement" to Walker. So, if Kirk's high-minded ethics are to be even-handed, Prosser would also have to recuse himself and Kirk should be equally outraged at Prosser. Also note that Kirk doesn't consider it to be "pandering" when Prosser goes out of his way to seek Koch-backed groups' money. Once again, Kirk shows heavy bias and hypocrisy as he rants about bias and hypocrisy. "Also, prepare for "vote fraud" allegations in this one. " "Allegations" being the operative word here, and not "credible allegations" or indictments. Anyone can make allegations of anything without any evidence at all. For example, Kirk previously alleged that the SCOTUS ruled that DOMA is constitutional. Of course, he was wrong about that, but it is still an allegation.

• That is NOT a woman. Check out the picture above. That's a man wearing lipstick and a wig! I HATE when a judge is refereed to as "liberal" or "conservative" Judges are supposed to be "non partisan". This is a sad sad situation we are in America... This judge previously had publicly said "she opposed Scott Walker's budget plan". Doesn't that disqualify her from passing judgment in the case due to her predetermined bias? Predetermination by a individual disqualifies them from being a juror. If she (I still say that's a man) makes a ruling on a challenge to the current law, her ruling will be challenged and ultimately thrown out. Personally I feel she will have to recluse herself from that case altogether. Should have kept her mouth shut, but I suppose she felt a need to pander to the union thugs for their money to aid her campaign. Also, prepare for "vote fraud" allegations in this one.

• Good job on this article. I especially appreciate that you mentioned Prosser's big funding advantage. Morrissey seems to be implying that "organizing" is unfair somehow, but out-spending your opponent is simply democracy in action. Recalls are also unfair, except when Republicans do it to three Democratic state senators. Republicans wanted to recall all eight senators who left the state, but they couldn't get enough signatures to recall five of them. I guess that voters in those districts really aren't very upset at the Democrats for "fleeing". The Republican effort for recalling the three easiest targets is stalling badly, however. The statewide vote on the SC race was their best shot, because they could leverage the deeply red rural districts against the urban ones. That strategy didn't even work well.

TotalComments: 5