Actually, I have to correct one of the predicates in my previous post: One current Senator was appointed to fill the term of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Other than that, all were elected.

There seems to me a missing point in all of this discussion. Sens. Kohl and Feingold "recommended" Justice Butler for the judgeship. President Obama nominated him. Now, the Senate must vote on that nomination. In as much as all members of the Senate have been elected by the voters to conduct the affairs of governance, it seems that the voters will ultimately be represented in determining whether or not Justice Butler is seated.

Professor, interesting thoughts on viewership and voters. In a free society what do you declare would be required watching for all voters, as you say one cable station now should disqualify voters it would be interesting your take on the other spectrum.

rexkramer, when Bush came into office, ten percent of the judge ships were vacant. As of July last year, only 5 percent were vacant, and the 110th Congress, a Democrat controlled one, confirmed more in 3 and a half years than the previous Republican Congress. The party of tolerance is correct.

William Howard Taft, Republican President lost reelection and in fact took 3rd in the race was later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Again, should we really let people vote that actually think the Fox Noise channel tells the truth? Or, that it should be ok for a network that purports to have 'news', but was admittedly one of the daily purveyors of the Bush whitehouse daily 'talking points'? It is really difficult to find actual NEWS==not opinion, not entertainment, but good ol' fashion, 'Walter Cronkite' news. But I digress.....On a related note, if you think elections are bad now, watch what happens if the supremes rule against the F.E.C. in "Citizens United v. F.E.C.", AND overrule Austin---that would let any company spend as much as they want to in support of any candidate, for ANY election. So, Exxon could spend some of its multi-billion dollar profits to help elect anyone, anywhere, who supports Exxon's views. So, if we thought the WMC purchased Gableman, well, look out....

The white house is filling up with crooks and the list just gets more interesting everyday ... yeah we got change alright.

"Why do we vote for judges? It makes no sense to me."

So that guys like "loophole Louie" have some accountability. Of course, when they get a handout federal appointment from the President it doesn't much matter. Though I guess one could look at all the Bush appointees in 8 years....no wait, that's right, the Democrats blocked Bush's ability to appoint nearly any federal judges. Ah yes, the party of tolerance and compassion...as long as you agree with them.

Janesvillean, when the “mean” republicans lost their election (rejected by the voters), did they get appointed to a lifetime position in the same profession?

janesvillean: Sounds like your whinning about the republicans ... you sound like a true Dem. When your boat starts to sink pull down bush or the republicans with you so you look a tad bit better.

Republicans are the whiniest bunch of hypocrites the world has ever seen. This only becomes more apparent every year. George W. Bush had at least two cabinet members who previously lost an election, but were appointed to positions of importance regardless:
* John W. Ashcroft, Attorney General (had just lost his Senate seat)
* Spencer Abraham, Energy Secretary (had just lost his Senate seat)

Nevermind the losers, 95%+ of the "winners" of elections in this country are unqualified to hold the office they are sitting in, either due to lack of common sense, or inability to put the needs of constituents above partisan politics.

Why should only politicians be allowed to lie and get away with it?

I'd listen to fox news over most of those other "news channels" anyday of the week, most of them are holding obama's hand. I do see tho most are seeing obama for what he is, other than msnbc ... I think they are sleeping with obama. obama can't do anything other than talk a pretty talk and that's even wearing thin ... just look at the the people he hires to work for him .... mostly crooks and "Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly" find them out. Now if anyone really thinks Fox News was full of lies and untruths don't you think they'd be getting their a@@es sued off? Hide your heads in the sand all you want and say change is here .... but where is it?

Running for office gives you the voter an option to cast a ballot (your voice) in favor or not...a political appointment leaves no option for you, the voter. Hardly the same thing.

janesvillean: Why would Sarah Palin even want to run again? she's making her money the honest way, not like all the crooks we have in office now.

It is like that guy Abe Lincoln who in 1823 came in 8th in a race for the Ill General Assembly. I guess he was never heard of again? Or R M Nixon who lost in 1960, we would never had Dick to kick around again after that (right?).

janesvillian: THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm happy to know that this lost-an-election disqualification from future offices means that Sarah Palin won't be running again.

just another nail in the coffin of our so called commander and chief. See if "IT" gets voted for again in this state!

Why do we vote for judges? It makes no sense to me.

I went to senseless brain-dead's website and tried to ask him if he felt that all election losers were unfit for public office, and he refuses to accept e-mail from anyone who lives outside his district. This may be typical, I don't know. But it certainly is cowardly. His stupid remarks surely were not confined to his district.

Is senseless brain-dead, then, saying that if a candidate loses an election, he should never again be allowed to serve the public? Is he saying that in any given election, there is only one capable candidate? That an election with two able, competent candidates from whom to choose is not possible. One lost, so he (she) must never again be allowed to serve? I knew neo-cons were cynical, but geez...

After reading his bio, I doubt any of us are in the position to criticize much. There's no way I can put so many accomplishments here, so below is the link.
http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/docview.as...

We see where you got your name Okie...

No argument there...

You bet, Prof. But, you and I get to design them!

CuGuy--So, are you with me on the idea of bringing back poll tests--the non-discriminatory kind?

If every person who lost an election were disqualified for public office, we would be without leaders.

Has Sensenbrenner lost all his senses? It was an election Mr. Butler lost, which should not be confused with a reasonable or legitimate assessment of an individuals judicial intellect. Especially an election reeking of political overtones such as the one involving Mr. Butler. Politics aside, I believe most would find Mr. Butlers judicial intellect more extensive than Mr. Gablemans based on education and experience. If Mr. Butler had been removed for judicial misconduct, or if his legal opinions were called into question based on dubious legal foundations then I could understand Sensenbrenner's distress. But he does not question Mr. Butlers qualifications, his opposition is based on the fact Mr. Butler lost an election. Mr. Sensenbrenner should be embarrassed by his feeble attempt to discredit Obama's choice for the Federal bench. But then Republicans have been embarrassed alot lately.

Butler was voted off because the Gableman's campaign lied about a case where Butler was an attorney. It had nothing to do with his performance as a judge. Gableman is now facing sanctions for his part if defaming Butler. Gableman is the one who should be removed from the court.

Copperguy- he was voted off by the people of Wisconsin. I would be angry too. This guy has no business being appointed. Get a clue!

So, JimP...which part of his information is wrong? Judge Butler is black and he is from Chicago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_B._Bu...

gpawcat where do you get your info because it is totally wrong.

The judge was born in Chicago, and is black. That makes him qualified.

Partisanship at its best (or worst). From both sides.

So, let me get this right. A Republican Congressman is ANGRY that a President of the United States appointed to the bench a former Supreme Court justice whose seat on THAT court was bought and paid for by the Republican Wisconsin Manufacturer's and Commerce, and by a candidate who is now up for disciplinary action over the lies and decptions of his campaign?

OK.

Another joke on us.