Ziegler 867-5309
March 24, 2007
Oh please, give me a break. Annette Ziegler will not be a good Supreme Court justice. She’s displayed extremely poor judgment in her current job. She’s guilty of professional misconduct. Her “gut check” rationale for ignoring the rules and ethical canons of her profession is pathetic. All of those things are reasons not to vote for her, as is, for me at least, her rather extreme conservatism.
But I don’t care at all about the fact that she called the Ritz-Carlton from her office.
Apparently I’m supposed to care, because the Clifford campaign just sent me an email with the somewhat hysteric subtitle “Another Rule Broken: A Clear Pattern With Judge Annette Ziegler“:
Last evening Madison news station, WKOW-TV, reported that Judge Annette Ziegler made a number of personal calls from her “taxpayer-funded office lineâ€, in violation of Washington County’s policy manual. The Washington County rules dictate that “all telephone communication systems are to be used for legitimate business activities.â€
According to the news report, among the out of state calls Judge Ziegler made were calls to “swank ski resorts†including the Ritz-Carlton Club and Snowmass Resort in Aspen, Colorado. Ziegler also received a call from a “high-end factory outlet store in Bonita Springs, Florida after previous unspecified calls to Bonita Springs were placed from the judge’s phone.â€
There’s been some discussion on the left, wondering if we’re guilty of swiftboating Ziegler. And the general consensus has been No. The ethics charges are accurate and serious (and in my opinion, disqualifying). Using the office phone for a personal call, not so much. Our high ground just eroded a little bit more. (We have a long ways to fall before we reach the werewolf level.)
Maybe I’m just an idealistic liberal who prefers his political debate to be edifying, the better to congratulate myself on my smug superiority to Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, Cheney, Goldberg, et al. It’s not that I oppose negative campaigning. If a charge is accurate, go for the throat. But I really dislike bogus scandals generated solely in the hope of knocking a couple percentage points off of someone’s approval rating.
And for whose benefit is this being done? If I’m on your mailing list, the odds are I’m already a supporter. You don’t need to convince me. Do you really think I’m going to tell my friends and family about how Annette Zeigler called to confirm a vacation reservation on company time? That will get the undecideds off the fence!
I’m hoping for something more substantial from my side.
March 24th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
What makes is relevant is that those numbers were among more than 1,000 redacted by Washington County for “security reasons” as part of an open records request.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=578675
March 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
“Security reasons” is a preposterous excuse for refusing the open records request, but what does that have to do with Ziegler? It’s pretty conspiratorial to suggest that she secretly worked behind the scenes to classify her phone records, presumably on the assumption that a phone call to a shopping mall in Florida is beyond the pale.
Or are you suggesting that she was making fundraising calls on the taxpayer dime? There’s no evidence for that, either.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I have to agree, Ben. Of the sins Ziegler has committed, planning a vacation from her office just doesn’t even make the radar for what’s scandalous. If we fired every government employee who ever made personal phone calls from the office, well, that’d be just about everyone, wouldn’t it?
March 25th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I agree with him too. The sad thing about all this is Clifford still as not defined herself. There is no chance in hell I’d ever contemplate voting for Zeigler, but a large one that I’d NOTA, under vote or whatever you want to call it on the Supreme Court race.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Since you know full well, Nate, that Supreme Court candidates aren’t allowed to disclose how they’d rule on a particular issue, what exactly are you looking for?
March 26th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I disagree. A candidate who discloses over 2.6 million dollars worth of stock holdings can afford to plan her vacation on her own cell phone like many people do to avoid cheating the office. With her means, it is shameful that she ripped off the taxpayers even $1.00. For me, the petty amount makes it even worse.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Then why do we know so much about how Ziegler ruled and / or will rule. Make the case Dave, why are you voting for her. Not one Democratic blogger has expressed any reason to vote for Clifford.
What kind of cases did she take at firm? What cases as assistant attorney general?
March 26th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
How about this, Nate–She is not compromised by ethical lapses. She has never presided over cases in which she had a clear financial interest. She will not serve with an ethical cloud hanging over her head. Will Clifford be a better judge? I don’t know. Maybe she will make mistakes similar to Ziegler at some point. If she does, she should be defeated in the next election. The answers here are not pleasant–either Ziegler is a)dishonest; b)crooked; c)incompetent; d)indifferent to professional/ethical standards; e)all of the above. WMC should have done a better job vetting their candidate. Case closed.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
So WHAT if Ziegler has a few missteps, she’s 10000X more ethical than Diamond Jim Doyle! Mark it down now, Justice Ann Ziegler. Period. My WMC cash bought JB VanHollen’s election and it will buy a seat on the Supreme Court. It’s good to be in Wisconsin where money CAN buy everything.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
So you can’t make a case for her.
There no chance in hell I ‘d vote for Ziegler so she’s irrelevant. I think its kind of sad none of you can make a good argument to vote for her. Here’s what I’d want to know,
Is she partial to the environment or polluters?
Is she partial to workers or big business?
Is she partial to consumers or corporations?
Is she partial to civil liberties?
I’m voting for the Supreme Court not traffic court for god’s sakes.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
While it’s obvious that no judicial candidate can answer the sort of questions you’re asking, Nate, it is possible to read the tea leaves and find out about the candidates’ understanding of the constitution.
Linda Clifford is in favor of civil liberties that are more expansive than federal 4th Amendment guarantees, based on Wisconsin’s more liberal customs and traditions.
She agrees with the recent ruling that declared the low caps on tort damages unconstitutional (the ruling that has so infuriated WMC, and that prompted national GOP groups to threaten millions of dollars in attack ads against the justices). That ruling was pro-environment, pro-consumer, and pro-worker.
She claimed that her favorite book about judicial philosophy was Stephen Breyer’s Active Liberty, which espoused a kind of pragmatic liberalism combined with a minimalist scope for a given ruling. That is, she understands the concept of a living constituion, but she believes in rulings that are narrowly targeted and that leave as much room as possible for legislative action. That philosophy is also far more pro-environment, far more pro-consumer, and far more pro-worker, than Annette Ziegler’s strict construction.
Linda Clifford will be a good justice, above and beyond the fact that Ziegler will be a bad one.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Also, “partial to” is a really bad thing in a judge. I don’t want a judge that’s “partial” to any particular side of a lawsuit. That’s at least as blatant a disregard for judicial ethics as Ziegler’s “gut check”.
I do want a judge who will not interpret the constitution in such a way as to prevent other branches of the state government, as well as lesser jurisidctions, from acting in a progressive manner according to the will of their constituents. I also want a judge who will not allow a reactionary government to impede without reason the individual rights of citizens. And because those two goals are obviously in contradiction to each other, I want judges who are minimalists, too.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Ben,
That helps some. It seems to me there’s a little bit of everyone pretending Aunt Ethel is not losing her mind. We all know the Supreme Court is a political position but especially the Democrats pretend that its not.
What cases did she take as Ass. Attorney General or her law firm, that help even more. It just seems outrageously silly to decide what many believe is a central political decisions on terms that are not political. You say she’s pro worker, pro environment but where’s the evidence.
We disagree on the partial. It clearly matters to me what side she is on. I certainly know what side Ziegler is on by her past cases. What is important more than the partiality of an individual judge is the court as a whole. Unlike you I am far less concerned with her judicial temperament and style than what it says about which people she will go to bat for.
As you can guess since the Supreme Court is one of our most political decisions I think it should be a political decision from the start. How she has or may rule in the future, while not binding, are legitimate questions in my book. They would answer both of our questions better than this circus we currently engage in.