Judge not

+My blog on the 31st March lamented the way some judges are chosen in the US, i.e. often based on partisanship more than objective judging skills. Now, days later the New York Times reports on an election for a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge which they describe as one of the most important elections in the US this year. Two quotes make plain the stakes:
 
A victory for the conservative candidate, Daniel Kelly, would mean abortion remains illegal, the gerrymandered maps stay in place, and Wisconsin remains a dysfunctional democracy for the foreseeable future.
 
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court was the only one in the country that agreed to hear Donald Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election, eventually rejecting — by a single vote — his attempt to throw out 200,000 ballots in the state’s two big Democratic counties. Kelly, when I interviewed him in February, declined to say whether he agreed with the decision to uphold the 2020 results.
 
Whoever wins will determine the majority on this court with consequences dreadful to contemplate.
 
+I thought my April’s Fool joke was wholly appropriate—but sadly it seems the nation’s fool will be with us for some time yet.