Sadly, however, Geske's decision does not speak well of the court. Geske determined that her desire to be more connected with the community, more caring toward the poor and the elderly, more engaged with the issues of the day, meant there was no place for her on the bench. On this point, Geske is wrong. Her spiritual and personal awakening actually makes her more qualified to sit on the bench, not less. Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, which should be serious dialogues about the law and its application, and which ought to engage the great mass of citizens, are instead empty exercises.
Judicial candidates refuse to express opinions and to characterize their viewpoints.
Once the voting is done, the justices withdraw even further from the populace. This is necessary to an extent, since justices cannot discuss specific cases that are before them. But the legitimate bar on discussion of specific cases has been turned into an illegitimate excuse for isolating justices from their communities and from the people who live in them. That is an isolation Geske has rebelled against. Far from bidding her adieu and going about business as usual, Geske's fellow justices ought to be reflecting on the disconnection between Wisconsin's high court and the people of this state.