JoAnne Kloppenburg, David Prosser Debate

Last night at Marquette University Law School, incumbent Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General Joanne Kloppenburg debated.

In its coverage of the forum, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel sticks with its campaign to paint Justice Prosser as uncivil, questioning his temperament. The Journal Sentinel continues to push its notion that discord on the Supreme Court should be blamed on Prosser.

In a further sign of acrimony on the state's highest court, Supreme Court Justice David Prosser said Monday that discord among the seven justices would dissipate with his election next month because some of his fellow jurists don't want him re-elected.

Prosser made the declaration during a debate at Marquette University with his opponent, Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.

In response to a question from former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske about what he would do to boost collegiality on the Supreme Court, Prosser said getting re-elected to another 10-year term would lessen the animosity among the deeply divided court.

"Some people on the court don't want me elected," Prosser said.

Kloppenburg said it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to come together if Prosser was re-elected because he has "publicly castigated" other justices.

"Losing your temper does not solve problems," Kloppenburg said.

Prosser recently acknowledged that he called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a "bitch" behind closed doors and threatened to "destroy her" more than a year ago when the court split over removing fellow Justice Michael Gableman from a criminal case as he faced an ethics allegation.

Prosser said he's not the source of the conflict on the Supreme Court. He has previously said the court has formed factions for and against Abrahamson.

Shortly after the candidates smiled and posed for photos together, Monday night's debate quickly turned personal and snippy. Kloppenburg reiterated her campaign theme that new blood is needed on the divided court, saying it doesn't help to have justices split into two blocs and she could help move them away from partisan quarrels. Prosser repeated his campaign stance that 12 years on the Supreme Court gives him an advantage in experience.

In the past, Supreme Court elections have not been partisan affairs. Not so in recent elections and particularly this year. The bitter fight over collective bargaining for public employees has pitted Republicans against Democrats in the state Legislature in a battle that could end up being decided by the state Supreme Court.

In recent weeks the Supreme Court election has been portrayed as a referendum on Gov. Scott Walker's decision to end most collective bargaining for most of the state's public workers. In effect, a Prosser election defeat would be viewed as a victory for unions.

Kloppenburg's suggestion that she could bring harmony to the Supreme Court and eliminate partisan quarrels is laughable. Without question, Kloppenburg is running a campaign that is extremely partisan in nature.

Immediately after citing Kloppenburg as a potentially moderating addition to the Supreme Court, the JS notes that the election is closely tied to Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill, with Prosser's defeat being a union victory.

That couldn't be considered a victory for unions unless Kloppenburg is clearly identified as being anti-Walker and solidly pro-union special interests.

The sound bite of the night came with a discussion of new media's impact on the race.

Partisan elements to the race first developed in December when Prosser's campaign manager released a statement saying Prosser would be a complement to the Walker administration. Prosser said he didn't see the statement before it was released and disavowed it. Kloppenburg replied that Prosser did not disavow the comment until recently.

That prompted Prosser to criticize comments made by people on Kloppenburg's Facebook page regarding Walker's budget-repair bill.

Prosser quoted one of the Facebook comments: "Stop the turd, vote Kloppenburg."

"Now, am I the turd?" Prosser said. "That's totally inappropriate."

Kloppenburg said she's not responsible for postings by other people on her campaign's Facebook page.

Kloppenburg isn't responsible for postings on her Facebook page, but she is responsible for her reaction to them.

She had the opportunity to condemn the tenor of many of the posts found on her page. She didn't take it. Through her silence, she condoned and even stoked the rancor and political nature of the race. She wants to be the anti-Scott Walker, pro-public employee union candidate.

That's not the role of a State Supreme Court justice.

For Kloppenburg to suggest that she would be a nonpartisan, calming, and unifying presence on the Supreme Court is ridiculous.

Kloppenburg is not running for Miss Congeniality. And Prosser is not running to be prom king. Most importantly, Scott Walker isn't in the race at all, though you could never tell that by a quick glance at Kloppenburg's Facebook page, an Internet anti-Walker organizing operation.

This post shows out-of-state influence in the race and its partisan nature:

Jeremy Wallace JoAnne Kloppenburg for Wisconsin Supreme Court

How out of state people can help us in WI:
Go to kloppenburgforjustice.com

Click on the link about making phone calls. Takes one minute to set up an account. You can call people any day from 10-8. Provided a script and super easy to use. Every phone call helps. Kloppenburg can tilt the courts in our favor and all of this might be decided at the Wisc SC.

Kloppenburg encourages participation on her Facebook page, a virtual meeting place to block Scott Walker's agenda.



Experience matters in this race. Judicial philosophy matters. Kloppenburg falls short on both counts.

Video, from FOX 6: