Supreme Court candidates clash over gun rights
Waukesha -- The state Supreme Court campaign is ending with a fight over a new issue: Who is the better friend of Wisconsin gun owners?
Challenger Randy Koschnick, a Jefferson County circuit judge, told Carroll University Republicans last week that a 2003 dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson showed a "hostility to gun owners" and their constitutional rights.
Responding later, Abrahamson said: "Nothing in my record is hostile to gun owners. Nothing in my record is hostile to any group, any individual, any entity.
“Judge Koschnick is doing anything at all to mislead the voters and distort the record."
Abrahamson and Koschnick compete in Tuesday’s nonpartisan election for a 10-year term. She was appointed in 1976 and has been chief justice since 1996. He has been a circuit judge for 10 years.
Apr 6, 2009 at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Regarding lawful concealed carry by citizens: One of your neighbor states (Michigan) just reported that "A preliminary report for the first six months of 2008 indicate a 12.5% decline in violent crimes and a 6.8% decline in property crimes. -- source: Michigan State Police. During the same six month period in 2008, the number of lawfully carried concealed handguns in Michigan increased 7%." Conclusion - more guns in the hands of lawabiding citizens equals less crime.
Apr 6, 2009 at 6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
2nd amendment: The peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon...its in the constitution and that means stay away from that right and do not try to re-interpret or spin it to fit your political aspirations. 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.In other words do not try to use the Constitution to deny the very rights laid down in the Constitution...NO TRESPASSING! Our Founding Fathers had it together when they created our Constitution after living under tyranny they knew by experience how bad it could be and they put in certain guarantees that would,could, will and have kept us a Free People in charge of our destinies, free of foreign and/or domestic intervention.
Apr 5, 2009 at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
The internet has a lot information on it. Could those who need the information make an attempt to find it for themselves?
Apr 5, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Definition of a judge interpreting law: The judge interpreted the law in the way that I like. Definition of a judge making law: The judge interpreted the law in the way that I don't like.
Apr 5, 2009 at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let me clarify, I did not word that like I should have...Judges subvert our democracy by making rather than interpreting laws.
Examples of a judge making law
A judge orders tax increases in some communities—classic taxation without representation
A judge orders property to be sold under the government’s power of eminent domain simply so the new private property owners may build projects that yield more tax revenue to the government.
The decision in Massachusetts to allow gay marriage imposes the decision of three judges on the entire nation. It may require a constitutional amendment to override it though this is under the purview of our legislature of representatives.
The Constitution spells out Congress’s ability to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because the Constitution, rather than Congress, establishes that court.
Check it out:
http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu2_3.h...
“It is the people and not the judges who are entitled to say what the Constitution means, for the Constitution is theirs, it belongs to them and not to their servants in office”
Teddy Roosevelt
Apr 5, 2009 at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ummm....if "judges should not have the power to interpret laws", then what exactly should judges DO?
Apr 5, 2009 at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Abrahamson is a socialist bureaucrat who thinks people are just too stupid to make their own decisions.
Judges should not have the power to interpret laws. This is what she tries to do. Judges are just supposed to uphold the law, not change it.
Apr 5, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
One case the State Journal refered to was where she voted against an appeal by a store owner who was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in his own place of business: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2006/05/wisupr...
.
She's raising $11 in campaign contributions to every $1 Koschnick receives, a lot of it from special interest groups as well as attorneys and prosecutors who may be (or who's cases may be) in the court some day. http://www.wisdc.org/pro09-100948.php
.
It's a shame that justice in the United States is so frequently available... to the highest bidder.
Apr 5, 2009 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Your are right, they should have looked up that 2003 opinon, reporters are not what they used to be in fact I dont think we have any. So now we dont know if it is true or not.
Apr 5, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is a prime example of the media not doing it's job. Why do they not reserch what Koschnick claims? and put it in print for us the public do determin if it is true or not.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.