Wisconsin's Mixed Results Show Rule of Law Sometimes Prevails Despite Liberal Judicial Victories
Source: M.D. Kittle. "Another Liberal Wins, But The Rule Of Law Prevails In Wisconsin." April 8, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that while Wisconsin keeps electing liberal judges who will make activist rulings, at least one activist judge was properly held accountable for breaking the law. This shows the rule of law can still work even when the wrong people get elected.
Conclusion
While Wisconsin continues to elect liberal judges who will legislate from the bench, the rule of law can still prevail when activist judges who break the law are held accountable
Premises
- Chris Taylor, a far-left activist judge, won the Wisconsin Supreme Court election despite her extreme record on abortion, transgender issues, and election integrity
- Liberal candidates consistently defeat conservative candidates in Wisconsin Supreme Court races due to superior funding and unmotivated conservative base
- Former judge Hannah Dugan was rightfully convicted and her appeal rejected for helping an illegal immigrant evade federal immigration enforcement
- Dugan's conviction demonstrates that judges are not above the law and must follow it regardless of personal political beliefs
- The federal court's rejection of Dugan's immunity claim sends a message to other activist judges that breaking the law has consequences
Assumptions
- Liberal judges inherently engage in judicial activism and legislate from the bench
- Conservative judges are more committed to following the rule of law than liberal judges
- Helping illegal immigrants evade law enforcement is always wrong regardless of circumstances
- Judicial immunity should not protect judges who act with corrupt motives
- Wisconsin's political landscape favors liberals due to funding advantages rather than popular support