What was posted 24 years ago, is the same as what you believe now, RIGHT?

[Virginia Foulk]

We are looking forward to a new Wis. Supreme Court Justice Bradley, appointed by Scott Walker to fill an open seat on our Supreme Court. Against her is Joanne Kollenberg, who ran against Justice Prosser and lost. Kollenberg is liberal, and is being courted by the Democrats, and One Wisconsin Now, a very liberal pro LBGT, etc. group. They have come out with an article that Bradley wrote as a late teen - in 1992, after Clinton won.  She was so upset, and her article actually bespoke just what I thought at the time, Granted, it was very rough, but then back at that time, I would have agreed with everything she had to say. She worked hard, graduated, became a lawyer, worked in legal for over 19 years and during this time her attitude was tempered by experience.

At 18/19, most of us are rather opinionated, and given the chance to speak out, probably wish we hadn't later. Anyway, I find my opinions have changed over the years, though I still am against Gay marriage and abortion. For Justice Bradley, I'm sure her experiences would have affected her original beliefs and she has expressed apology for her words of 24 years ago. However, she has expressed her belief that she has used the rule of law and does not have the strong feelings she had as a 19 year old.

So I'm posting this here, to get thoughts on what others think .  I believe her that she has changed over the years and has a better understanding about these issues.

No matter what, Bradley has our votes. 

[Thomas Vincent Coffey]

Permit me a strong opinion.

While I have neither any awareness of these people nor of what values they represent; I do have a definite attitude regarding the role of any Judiciary, in the public arena.

As background, having spent more than two decades working abroad and a substantial portion of that time in Central Europe; I continuously observed, that no European nation tolerates a system whereby its non-elected Judges, w/ law credentials, are allowed to interpret and overrule laws driven by the will of its citizens and enacted by their Parliamentary Representatives. None! That the citizens of the United States tolerate such a system, is incomprehensible to me.

The notion that our judiciary is a co-equal branch of government is arrant malarkey. It's powers were never either defined nor enumerated by the Founders, rather simply assumed by SCOTUS; and in particular, the concept of judicial review.

As for homosexual (not gay) marriage, it's an absurd contradiction; marriage having been defined through the Precepts and Principles of the Natural Law, millennia ago. As such, what some modern day judge thinks about this, is his trivial opinion, when measured against the wisdom of the Ages. To stupid for words.

[Virginia Foulk]

thank you. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices are voted on every 10 years, unless Gov. appoints for interim vacancies. 

I understand that the Supreme Court of the US does rule when citizen groups or others have filed lawsuits because of a law that appears to be over-ruling the Constitution.   But then again, they have to agree to even hear the argument.  So in those cases, I believe that it is the citizens rights to contest those laws. And expect our justices to rule according to the Constitution - doesn't appear to be happening lately, though.

As for what is going on here in Wis. without addressing the particular candidates, I believe that what a young person expressed or believed years ago does not necessarily define that person now.  It is far more important to review and understand what that person has done, and how they express themselves.

[Virginia Foulk]

this wasn't really of much interest except to me. Just wanting to consider others thoughts on what candidates past ideas,spoken/written words were - 20 or so years in the past, and how their views are now.  So will be removing it in a week.

[Rhodes]

God I hope I've learned something in 24 years... or even in 4