Brew City Brawler

Shark and Shepherd flip-flops on puerile attack on Butler nomination?

Today Rick Esenberg says this:

I am not much impressed by the argument that Butler should not be approved for the federal bench because he lost two statewide elections.

Which struck the Brawler as odd, given that last summer Ese said this in an interview with the Wisconsin Law Journal:

But Esenberg noted that Butler has twice been defeated in state Supreme Court races, the last in 2008 by Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Gableman.

“While one could argue that a person who has twice lost a statewide judicial race ought not to be elevated to the federal bench, I doubt that argument will carry a great deal of weight with the senators or the White House,” Esenberg said.

Now, ambiguity hangs over these paragraphs. Did Ese "note" the point or was he led by the reporter? Did the reporter cut language making it clear that Ese was "not much impressed" with this clearly embarrassing argument? Or were the reported remarks -- ambiguous and ambiguously caveated as they are -- an accurate reflection of what he had to say?

Anklebiting? I think not, as Ese's remarks to the WLJ are repeated on the Sykes show every time Butler comes up. And certainly Esenberg acolyte Patrick McIlheran took them at face value. Though admittedly McIlheran's reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired.

Meanwhile Obama plans to renominate Butler, as he should. And the illusory Tenant wades through the well-considered arguments of teabaggers who berated Feingold over the nomination.

UPDATE: Esenberg weighs in in comments.

Sykes the performing ape continues his lying campaign for Gableman

Stuck in the car yesterday, the Brawler had the misfortune of hearing Charlie Sykes continue his jihad against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler. Sykes homed in on the Knapp case, a case that revolved around questions of police withholding someone's Miranda rights and the admissibility of physical evidence before such rights were read.

Long story short, the majority opinion in that case, led by Butler, came down against the cops. Sykes argument resembled his conclusion in a Wisconsin Policy Research Institute paper:

What stunned the dissenters and many court watchers, however, was the court’s decision to ignore the specific decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case before it.

Illusory Tenant has labeled this argument "idiotic" -- and with good reason. Read here and here for more.

And while you're at it, read iT's whole archive of stories on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. It's a tale of useful idiots, falsity in advertising, an ignorant Burnett County judge and the shadowy interests that want to place him on the top bench in the state. And remember: Vote April 1.