Steve Killjoy and his colleagues have come up with more than a few editorial turds over the years, but few surpass their judgement today. Their editorial claims Dane County Judge, David Flanagan - the judge who issued a temporary injunction against the voter ID law this week - should have had more sense than to sign a recall petition against Scott Walker. The editorial goes on to say that Flanagan "compounded his mistake by not recusing himself from the case."
Wow. Such fine scholarly minds. This from the people who just a few weeks ago published a letter to the editor from a school board candidate supporting himself - on ELECTION DAY.
So let's break this down. We assume the JT understands Flanagan probably votes on election day and there is a 50/50 chance he did not vote for Scott Walker in 2010. Does that mean he should recuse himself from any case that may directly or indirectly be connected to the Governor?
Perhaps Flanagan should recuse himself from any case that is connected to any elected politician he may have voted for or against - ever?
The JT is basically saying Flanagan is incapable of understanding the difference between his personal beliefs and the law...which sounds a little like projection if you know them as well as we all do. Perhaps we should require judges to never vote because we cannot trust them with their own citizen rights under the State Constitution. Or better yet, make sure they voted and support Scott Walker so we know it's an impartial process.
One can surmise that Flanagan understood his name would be part of the public record when he signed the recall petition. We can also guess he wasn't too ashamed of it either. Flanagan acted as a citizen when he signed the recall petition - like voting - he gets to do that.
But what does signing a recall petition have to do with voter ID anyway? Joe Liebham and Jeff Stone wrote the bill not Scott Walker...well okay, ALEC wrote the bill - but you get the drift. Scott Walker is not the defendant in this case, so whatever Flanagan thinks about Walker is irrelevant - a position stated by actual legal experts, unlike the chimps at the Journal Times.
Apparently any judge who may personally disagree with the dozens of laws passed by this criminal enterprise are not fit to judge the cases which challenge those very same laws. That's a pretty big slippery slope.
However, the best part of today's editorial comes with a self-congratulatory conclusion:
"It is not uncommon for organizations to caution employees about publicly showing a preference for some point of view. At The Journal Times, we receive regular pre-election reminders that we are to take care with our public acts, lest we present even an appearance of a conflict of interest."Dream on Killjoy, dream on. Your free advertising space for Paul Ryan is getting a little dated - time for a new commercial update.