March
2007
Annette Ziegler: Liar
Annette Ziegler wants voters to believe she is the best choice for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Whether she’s the best choice or not depends on whether or not you want a Justice with ethics.
In her television commercials, Ziegler is attacking Linda Clifford for bringing to light the fact that, as a Washington County Judge, Ziegler failed to recuse herself from cases in which her own husband had a stake. Ziegler’s husband is on the Board of Directors for West Bend Savings Bank. You would think that a Judge who is ruling on a case before her would actually tell people that she had a stake in the outcome of a case.
But it gets better.
Ziegler has also ruled on cases where she has held stock for one side or another. Again, she failed to disclose her personal bias and investments before ruling on these cases. Once again, her rulings have impacted the profitability of companies she benefits from.
Now she wants us to believe she’s changed? Really, it didn’t affect how I ruled, she protests.
Oh please.
It’s not like she didn’t know she had stock in Wal-Mart. It’s not like she didn’t know her husband was on the Board of Directors for West Bend Savings Bank. Those omissions are lies. They’re not just harmless little white lies which hurt no one — they’ve impacted peoples lives.
But still, Ziegler has the audacity to blame Linda Clifford for playing dirty politics. All Clifford did was to bring up the issue of Ziegler failing to disclose her connections and point out that she should have recused herself. That’s not dirty politics — that’s news. Clifford is simply pointing out facts. This distortion is yet another reason Ziegler is unqualified for the bench.
Despite these two lies by omission, I’m even more concerned over her light touch with pedophiles. I know that Ziegler is using her campaign commercials to tout her toughness against sexual predators but what of the case where she gave a man just one year for molesting his 10 year old step daughter? That makes me sick and it should make everyone sick. Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Reporter Mike Nichols broke the story a few years ago but her commercials touting her toughness with sexual predators continue to run. Voters should ask themselves what sentence they would have given a man who violated his own step daughter? Annette Ziegler gave him one year in a facility where he still got work release. Even when the girl was trying to watch a children’s movie, the man was molesting her. Still, Ziegler thought the man needed “treatment” instead of hard time. Despite this, Ziegler says she is tough on sexual predators.
That’s another lie.
Is that the kind of Justice you want? Does Ziegler share your values?
Ziegler points to her experience as the main reason voters should consider her. But facts are facts and when Ziegler has been given the power and responsibility of a judge, she has failed. Now she wants a promotion.
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan, Watchdogging Campaigns, Watchdogging the Judiciary
RSS feed
Link
No comments on this yet? One might think there would be more interest in this race, given that it is the first race for an open Supreme Court seat since 1997, when Jon Wilcox beat Milwaukee civil rights lawyer Walt Kelly for this very seat Ziegler and Clifford are asking voters to plant their derriers in. In 1997 the issue was school choice, with the landmark case for the religious school voucher program pending before the court. As now, it was difficult to spark much interest, journalistically.
We might open discussion here on why the public has so little interest in state Supreme Court races. Any thoughts out there?
More questions: Is being tough on sexual predators really an appropriate litmus test for a state Supreme Court judge? Does not taking an election stand on a type of case suggest that a high court judge might prejudge or tip on an appellate case that might end up before the court? In a sexual predator case — any criminal case, for that matter — the higher courts generally take a pass and allow the county judge’s oversight to stand, unless there were some real foul ups in the lower courts.
Do the words “sexual predator” make for such great gut level reaction to TV ads that all statewide candidates believe they need to mention them? Gov. Doyle certainly has turned being “tough on sexual predators” into a political art form. Sexual predators also starred in the Attorney General’s race ads last fall. Can being tough on sexual predators really be an important litmus test for governors, attorney generals and supreme court justices all?
One more thing or two: Is there a better way than open elections to handle state Supreme court seats?
Or is it that we, as voters, simply need wiser and more interesting campaign consultants playing the political fields of Wisconsin?
I have always voted for Republicans or conservatives in the past, but this whole sexual predator thing has made me shy away from Ziegler. I guess I need to make a list of pros and cons for each to formulate an opinion on who I should vote for. That kind of leaves me with “no comment”. I can’t speak for anyone else.