A Case of Why WI Voters Should Show ID

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Ask yourself why the judge wouldn't recuse himself from this and allow a different judge to make this decision?

Why should he rescuse himself? What is it about legally signing a recall petition (being a voter himself) that renders a judge unable of objectively reviewing voting law? Are you saying judges cannot legally vote and also rule on voting law? Or they can only vote one way? Sorry, no: judges do not give up their private rights as citizens when they become judges.

A recusal from a case has legal outlines, definitions.

Why did the opposition not ask for a recusal already? Incompetence of the legal team? Or could it be because there isn't a valid argument?

And again, the case isn't even heard until April 16th. So a concerned side can ask for a recusal April 16th. But it's pretty apparent from the injunction decision that the law appears to be readily overturnable on broad, basic legal issues. Which has zero to do with a judges allegedly private, legal voting record.

The injunction lists the multiple legal reasons the judge feels the case will not proceed on it's merits April 16th. It is a roadmap to the opposition about what the judge will rule based upon the law.

Apparently, those in favor of the law can't come up with any legal responses to that, and are left with trying to disqualify the judge. So, get another judge. Have the case delayed even longer. The same decision will most likely be rendered. This isn't rocket science, or complicated. It's voting law, it's very clear and simple. The judges expert testimony has revealed over two hundred thousand voters will be disinfranchised. That's illegal. That is the argument that must be overcome by people that want the law implemented.

Attacking the judge and attempting to get a different judge is certainly a valid lawyer tactic, but it's rather indicative that those wanting the law implemented have zero legal argument to support the law.