Non-partisan judicial election? A lie. Take the following unintended admission of politicizing the judicial branch by Conservatives.

We've got an activist conservative judge problem...big time.

If this last Supreme Court election didn’t make if perfectly clear how partisan the judicial branch is now, hell Justice David Prosser was a former Republican speaker of the assembly, then the following story should tell you everything. Both candidates were touting their “conservative” credentials, as if law had an assumed, right wing bias.  

jsonline: For the second time in as many years, a judge appointed by Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle was defeated by a candidate who ran on a message of being the more conservative choice backed by prominent Republicans. Judge Kathryn Stilling countered that as a judge, she had shown she was a conservative by applying the law as it was written. 

See, “conservative” and “law and order” are inseparable in the Republican world view. Bizarre when you consider how disrespectful and suspicious conservatives are toward judges, the police and their fellow lawmakers. If they disagree with a judge’s decision, like they did when Judge Sumi held up the union busting bill, that judge shouldn’t have inserted herself into the political process. That action proved she is an liberal activists despite her conservative credentials. Never mind the constitution or state laws.

A year ago, another Doyle appointee to the bench, Richard Congdon, was defeated in his first election by former state Rep. Mark Gundrum, a Republican from New Berlin.

Gundrum was another extremist activist legislator, elected to the bench, by conservative voters more than willing to politicize the judicial branch so they could rub their agenda in the faces of their political foes.