Schimel's politically charged run for Attorney General suggests highly partisan influence of our legal system.

Republican accusations of "activism" rings ridiculously hollow now after so many activist decisions both at the state and federal supreme court level. Hate to say the obvious, but the GOP use of the courts kind gives that whole thing away, you know?

But the word "activism" is still being used to ignite conservative outrage over everything that doesn't fall in line with their party agenda. Despotic, authoritarian, dictatorial? Sure, but conservatism is the politics of purity and leadership. It's a majority agenda that doesn't quite see the need for minority influence.

Throughout the attorney generals debate, Republican politician/Waukesha DA Brad Schimel pummeled DA Susan Happ with the activist label at every turn. Another funny thing, Republicans always gravitate to Waukesha County when they're in trouble. Why is that?

I edited together all the highlights:

Schimel's purely political statement that Happ would make Wisconsin less safe and economy less stable;     Schimel's hands off approach to the DNR's lack of enforcement on environmental law;    Schimel's "if you work for any size of business...you should fear her do more agenda" (because a do-less agenda is better?);     Schimel lied when he said Happ didn't have a plan for cracking down on opium use;    Schimel called Happs defense of students ripped off by a number of private colleges a hit list;   Schimel criticized Happ for seeking a second opinion, which she was right in questioning (Schimel too smart for that?);    Schimel's stupid swearing in "fingers crossed" comment that still doesn't make any sense since AG's do offer constitutional opinions the state can act on;     Schimel was wrong on criminal background checks impeding gun purchases;     Schimel wants to correct a political mistake with a political plan to move two entire state departments to his control;   the funnier moment when Schimel admitted he wasn't anybody's choice to fill the open jobs he wanted ("they didn't hire me" should tell you something).

This is what's at stake if "Homer" Schimel takes over as AG:

AG candidate Susan Happ says Capitol Protests legal, believes in the State Constitution. Brad Schimel doesn't.

AG candidate Susan Happ looked good again. Especially after Brad Schimel said he would ignore the state constitution for the new laws regulating free speech at the Capitol. Here's the actual constitutional language:

Article I, Section 4, reads: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government or any department thereof shall never be abridged.”

But that doesn't matter, because very simply, Brad Schimel will defend every rule, regulation and law written by Republicans. Below, he oddly equates disorderly conduct with the people's right to assemble and petition the government.

Here's Brad Schimel as usual, stumbling around making another promise to defend all GOP laws, and not quite getting it:



Amazing. Schimel says if you don't like the ordnance (to curb the protests), then get it changed. Nifty advice when the government you're protesting is trying to outlaw dissent. Not a smart man, and not to curious either. He should look up the unique nature of the Capitol:

The Nation Magazine summed it up best with this important point: According to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Landmark Nomination: “The soaring rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol is designed to induce its citizenry to be, as individuals, among the ‘resources of Wisconsin.’ Whereas some statehouses are maintained apart from the urban fabric, the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda functions, both literally and symbolically, as a city center and is fully utilized as a public space to which all have claim.”

Getting a permit protects our free speech? That's what radio word salad chef Vicki McKenna said. Here's what I wrote a little while back:

As phony as the following Vicki McKenna reason is, there is some paranoia in play, rooted in the fear that grips every low information conservative. Oh, and pettiness is a big motivator too: 

McKenna of WIBA participated in the Liberty Singers event, and tells 27 News obtaining a permit is about security, not the political content of the activity. "We just want folks to understand, the permit is easy to get, it's a way to protect all of us and our ability to come here to our beautiful capitol and express ourselves," McKenna says.

NOTE: The state constitution is clear about the right to protest. The last time I looked, bus tours and weddings don't rise to what we would call peaceful assemblies to "consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof" unabridged. Social events need permits, not those protesting their government policies. 

Schimel should also read a little more. Marquette University's law school posted this analysis:

One response to the criticism of the new DOA policy has been to compare the DOA policy to the rules governing demonstrations at the United States Capitol building. the U.S. Capitol building is not considered a public forum, while the Wisconsin State Capitol is. The expression of political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment when it takes place in a public forum. 

As Attorney General, Republican Brad Schimel promises to protect Republican passed laws!!! He's actually telling us that.

We're adults here, aren't we? Isn't AG candidate Brad Schimel clearly telling us he will support every Republican passed law, with an exception for this, and exception for that? Reporters though will never print that.

Democratic AG candidate Susan Happ correctly pointed out Schimel's flip floppy hypocrisy.

Take for example the Government Accountability Board, in charge of elections. Brad Schimel says he supports Wisconsin's law banning coordination between candidates and third party groups...

...except when he doesn't support the GAB's interpretation of that law. But the GAB is a government body of retired judges appointed by the governor, and confirmed by the Senate, enforcing laws (one in particular), which Schimel doesn't personally agree with.

The mission of the Board is to ensure accountability in government by enforcing ethics and lobbying laws ... charged with oversight of Wisconsin's campaign finance, elections, ethics, and lobbying laws ... created a year earlier in 2007 Wisconsin Act 1 ... its staff are dedicated to enforcing the election, ethics, lobbying and campaign finance laws vigorously to reduce the opportunity for corruption and maintain public confidence in representative government.

The duties are clear, but Schimel still won't support the GAB's legal interpretation of election law. Schimel could represent the GAB and let the courts make that decision, but why go through that hassle?

GOP Rubber Stamp Schimel: He's point blank telling us that. In the debate he said he will clearly contort and politicize our legal system, making challenges a thing of the past. Here's that debate moment of clarity, Brad Schimel's confused state, and Susan Happ's reasoned reaction:

Schimel campaign Dirty, Political and Unprofessional beyond words.

For what is portrayed as a nonpartisan office, Brad Schimel isn't pretending to steer clear of instituting hard core politics into the state's law enforcement system as the attorney general.

You can't tell me Schimel's web site headline isn't absolute classless trash? What a wreck:

Walker thugs use Walker Recall Blacklist in attempt to discredit Ethical Ruling favoring Happ!!!

Here comes the Walker Recall Blacklist, and another blatant Brad Schimel desperation pass. He’s hot into what appears to be a smear campaign unbefitting anyone seeking the office of the state’s attorney general. Dare we say he's not the impartial Republican candidate he says he is? 

This juvenile angry cheap shot headlined his campaign site yesterday and today:

Wrong way Schimel misjudged another one. 

As expected, Schimel’s bumbling came just before Happ was exonerated of any wrong doing in that past case. Schimel apparently has more of an issue with the Supreme Courts directives, than with Happ, who used their screening process exactly.

jsonline: The state agency that regulates the conduct of lawyers has thrown out a complaint against Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ, the Democrat running for attorney general. Happ said that she followed state Supreme Court rules by screening herself from the case as soon as she saw that the defendant was a man she and her husband were involved with in a real estate transaction.

"Our ethical rules require this," she said.

Here’s where the Walker Recall Blacklist reared its ugly head, attempting to smear a Walker Authority opponent for their personal political position:

But Republicans immediately questioned the agency's finding because they said the investigator who looked into it had signed a petition to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2012.

Isn't it time we end this long running gag that portrays Republicans as poor defenseless victims?

Schimel to blindly defend all state laws no matter what! What about law banning coordination with third party groups? "I'm not sure."

Waukesha DA Brad Schimel's scatterbrained answers in Friday's Attorney General debate was an unnerving revelation for this viewer. Lazy and simplistic, Schimel hopes to hide his inability to make sound legal judgments by making the ridiculous pledge to defend all laws passed by the legislature. Who doesn't see through that one, really, we're grownups here aren't we?

Saying Schimel is unprepared for the job as the state's top cop would be understatement. Even at this late date, he's still waffling on the issues. The shocking clip below, completely missed by the media, shows Schimel already contradicting his promise to defend all state laws. Asked if he would simply defend the state law banning coordination between third party groups and political candidates, like Scott Walker did, Schimel is suddenly "NOT SURE." Am I the only one who noticed this mind-bending flip flop (at 2:48 in the video)?

Cudos to Mike Gousha for pursuing Schimel on this question. Schimel even forgot what law Gousha was talking about. Truly frightening:



It's likely Schimel will never be prepared for the job. Even unenlightened self absorbed radio talk hosts like Vicki McKenna nailed it early on. I put together a number a audio clips that proves McKenna right for once:



Thanks to the Mic's Devil's Advocates for coming up with the McKenna clips.

Republican AG Candidate Brad Schimel forgets to uphold the Constitution. Promises to fight EPA, then blames Democratic candidate DA Susan Happ of activism. Doh!

It was both sad and funny the way AG candidate Brad Schimel tried to paint his Democratic opponent DA Susan Happ as an activist.

Schimel's "I'll defend anything passed by the legislature" attitude isn't just scary, but completely ignores his pledge to also uphold the constitution. A pledge Democrat Susan Happ brought up a couple of times. It was a major mistake for Schimel, who's trying to appeal to a party that lives and dies by their mistaken interpretation of it.

Host Mike Gousha must have been just as surprised when Schimel, just after branding Happ as an activist, started to bash the EPA, opposed new standards, and rambled on about coal and jobs.

Happ couldn't help but mention Schimel's plan to put in place a solicitor general, a political appointee to take on the federal government, from the EPA to ObamaCare:

Happ: "I don't think that our attorney general should be engaging in those types of activist approaches."

Here's an edited clip to prove my point:



One of the funnier moments came when Schimel put his hand up with his fingers crossed saying, when you take an oath to uphold the constitution, you don't say "except for these ones I don't like or I don't agree with." So Schimel won't even think about a laws constitutionality? Yes.

WKOW: Schimel said, "We've got to enforce the laws the way they are written and we've got to defend Wisconsin law.  Happ sees the position a little differently. If elected AG she wouldn't defend laws that she feels are unconstitutional. During the debate she cited laws such as Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban and the Voter ID law. 

"The attorney general is not a robot. The attorney general has to be able to look at the law, compare it to the constitution and determine if it passes constitutional muster," Happ explains.

Schimel is playing for keeps, with this "classy" campaign strategy. This is what we can expect from the next attorney general?

Bumbling AG candidate Brad Schimel says he'll be Republican Rubber Stamp for Governor.

It's difficult to have any confidence at all in Waukesha DA Brad Schimel, especially after he entered the race for attorney general against Jefferson County DA Susan Happ.

It maybe just me but he reminds me of Homer Simpson, ya think?

Brad Schimel, Not Ready for Prime time: In the first slideshow below, Schimel said to Upfront's Mike Gousha (Goo-shay) that he was ready for the job. That's unlikely, and not just my opinion. After his disastrous roll out on conservative talker Vicki McKenna's program, what's left to question. Hat tip to the Devil's Advocates at The Mic 92.1 for the McKenna audio, which I edited into the conversation:



Schimel wasn't done fumbling and bumbling through his interview. Schimel said he planned to defend the laws passed by the Republican legislature and signed by the governor, no questions asked. After all, that's the AG's job description. Really? Was he doing that when he said wouldn't defend the same sex marriage law, before he changed his mind? That would have been one example of not defending state law, right?

In example  number two, he concluded the interview by saying he wouldn't be a rubber stamp for the governor, but that he would be pretty predictable. Huh?

Schimel: "If they've passed that law through, and it isn't plainly unconstitutional, that there are non-frivolous arguments to be made to support the law, I will be supporting that law..."

Wait a minute, it sounds like he won't be defending the laws as passed, if...? Schimel is all over the map. Slideshow audio:



One of my favorite lines by Schimel about Democratic candidate Susan Happ?

Schimel: "She's going to use her environment enforcement agency to obstruct the mining process up North. All of those things are wrong for Wisconsin."  

Yea, using the law to save the environment is "wrong for Wisconsin."

Schimel argues it's not his job to interpret the law. He said he'd let the courts decide what's constitutional or not, even though he has to initially interpret and defend those laws in court as our AG. He can't just sit back and let the judge decide...unless he really thinks he can.