H 23°, L 4° | Tomorrow: 
H 21°, L 6°
On this Tuesday, April 7, you have the opportunity to decide the future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Spring elections are fast approaching, and Students for a Fair Wisconsin has been working diligently to ensure the
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has served on the court for 33 years and has served as the chief justice since 1996. She is an advocate for judicial independence and has written extensively on victims’ rights, criminal law and the need for judicial independence and integrity. She has won the 2007 Wisconsin County Association’s “Friend of County Government Award,” which is the association’s highest award that recognizes her as having “a vision and commitment that is unparalleled in this state.”
Chief Justice Abrahamson has anticipated new issues in the court system, designed programs to address them and empowered courts across the state to be innovative in addressing challenges, thus making sure the courts serve the people.
Chief Justice Abrahamson has been endorsed by Fair Wisconsin, as well as many other labor and progressive organizations including WEAC, SEIU, AFT, AFSCME and AFL-CIO. Her opponent, Randy Koschnick, has called himself a conservative and has been endorsed by groups like Wisconsin Right to Life and the NRA.
It is extraordinarily important students recognize the magnitude of this election. While the 2008 presidential election was exciting, the spring election has a much more tangible effect on issues taking place on our doorsteps. It is necessary students do their part to impact these issues like civil rights and student liberties, and a great way to do so is by voting in the April 7 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
For more information about the election, you can visit www.fairwisconsin.com.
Stand up for the issues you care about — make sure to vote on Tuesday, April 7!
Vicki Pietrus
Chair, Students for a Fair
IP hash: cf3bf397
You do not speak for all students when you endorse Shirley. In all politics, I always follow the money and these are big groups that are throwing a million dollars behind her…why do you suppose they want her in office so bad? Is it because she is impartial? Shirley is the big money special interest candidate. Not usually who students vote for. It is also suspicious to take money from lawyers who currently have cases pending before you during that same election cycle! Not sure why you think the 2nd amendment is a negative…that is a constitutional right…there is nothing in the constitution about unions, sorry. Not that there is anything wrong with unions its just not a constitutional right that a judge should show favoritism to. That is the difference between the two…Koschnick will uphold the constitution regardless of his personal beliefs, Shirley has already demonstrated she usurps the power of the people when she legislates from the bench…see her record, it is nationally known. Even Bill Clinton turned her down in 1993 (as reported by the JS and many others at the time) for the US supreme court as too activist….too activist for Bill Clinton? That is bad for students. The legislature is suppose to make law, not a Judge, and she has been doing it for 30 years. She is known as the most activist Judge in the nation and if you don�t understand the reason behind the three branches of government, your time in school up to know has been for naught.
IP hash: b228f276
“You do not speak for all students when you endorse Shirley.”
Funny thing about letters to the editor — they rarely represent everybody’s view.
“In all politics, I always follow the money and these are big groups that are throwing a million dollars behind her…”
Kind of like WMC spending millions of dollars to help Republican candidates for the Supreme Court, including Koschnick, right?
“She is known as the most activist Judge in the nation…”
Saying someone is an “activist judge” indicates two things:
1) You disagree with them. 2) You’re a hypocrite, because if you didn’t disagree with them, you’d be celebrating their interpretation of the law.
IP hash: 5725123a
Judge Koschnick was the presiding judge in State v. Knapp, also known as the �Bloody Shirt Case.� In 1987, Resa Scobie Brunner was beaten to death with a baseball bat in her home. The detective investigating the case traveled to the residence of the last person seen with Brunner before her murder, Matthew Knapp. The detective asked Knapp what he had been wearing the day before, and Knapp pointed to a pile of clothes ultimately determined to contain a shirt with Brunner�s blood on it. Knapp challenged admission of the shirt at his trial because he had not been given his Miranda warnings prior to the detective�s question. In accord with Wisconsin and federal law, Judge Koschnick determined that the bloody shirt was admissible evidence at the defendant�s murder trial.
On appeal, Justice Shirley Abrahamson voted with the majority to reverse Judge Koschnick�s decision based on a perceived change in federal constitutional law. The case then proceeded to the United States Supreme Court, which held that federal law had not changed � failure to provide Miranda warnings was not, by itself, a basis for the exclusion of physical evidence. The decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further consideration. On remand, Justice Abrahamson again voted with the majority to exclude the bloody shirt as evidence at the defendant�s trial. This time, however, the majority relied on the Wisconsin Constitution, a basis not even considered in their first decision. By doing so, Justice Abrahamson and the majority expanded the rights of criminal defendants in these types of cases beyond what is required by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Constitution.
In his dissent, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jon Wilcox said:
�Ultimately, I am troubled by this court�s recent trend of departing from our long history of interpreting similarly-worded provisions of the state and federal constitutions in concert… . We should not suddenly change our well-settled manner of interpreting Article I, Section 8, simply to avoid the impact of the United States Supreme Court�s recent decision in Patane. Such a tactic seriously undermines the prestige, influence, and function of the judicial branch of state government.� (Par�s. 101-102.)