Obama appoints federal judge too liberal even for Wisconsin

On Oct. 1, the president nominated Louis Butler, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, to the U.S. District Court of his state's Western District. While Mr. Butler's resume is in order, his appreciation of a judge's proper role seems lacking.

Mr. Butler is such a judicial activist that Wisconsin voters rejected his state high court candidacy both times they had a chance to weigh in. In 2000, as a Milwaukee trial court judge, he lost his race for the Supreme Court by a whopping 2-1 margin. Liberal Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle appointed him to the court anyway four years later to fill a vacancy, but Mr. Butler didn't last long. Eighteen months ago, the first time Mr. Butler appeared on the ballot again, voters summarily dumped him after a high-profile race in which he was criticized for being far too liberal even for his state, which hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1984. It was the first time in more than four decades that an incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court justice had been defeated for re-election.

Wisconsin voters knew what they were doing.

Indeed. In one case decided by Judge Butler, he held paint manufacturers liable for injuries that a plaintiff "may or may not" have suffered:

In dissent, Justice Jon P. Wilcox wrote: "The end result ... is that the defendants, lead paint manufacturers, can be held liable for a product they may or may not have produced, which may or may not have caused the plaintiffs' injuries, based on conduct that may have occurred 100 years ago when some of the defendants were not even part of the relevant market." 

Who said liberal justice had to make sense?

The bottom line is the GOP has no power in the senate to block these nominees so we can expect more of this kind of "justice" in the future.