Discussion: GOP Nominee For AG: I Shouldn't Have Answered 'Senseless' Question On Interracial Marriage

system1 · October 16, 2014, 4:53pm

Discussion for article #228923

antisachetdethe · October 16, 2014, 5:00pm

“Face it Dorfmann, you fucked up.”

artemisia · October 16, 2014, 5:01pm

Sorry, bud, but it was a very fair question.

teenlaqueefa · October 16, 2014, 5:07pm

His answer was severely lacking however.

jw1 · October 16, 2014, 5:08pm

Headline Fix:

GOP Nominee For AG:
I Shouldn’t Have Answered. Anything.
Otherwise I’d be lying.
I’m a ® for chrissake!

jw1

jabooby · October 16, 2014, 5:09pm

Schimel! Schimazel! Hassenfeffer incorporated!

artemisia · October 16, 2014, 5:09pm

Well, that’s a huge part of the problem. The GOP is desperate to keep people from seeing or hearing what their actual platform is, so they pull all kinds of crap in order to obscure it. I think the GOP should proudly stand for what it believes and if they get thrashed in the polls, so be it. Only cowards don’t stand for what they believe in.

jw1 · October 16, 2014, 5:11pm

…because the U.S. Supreme Court resolved that issue 60 years ago, before I was born.

Yet 60 years from now we’ll take a look back at Mr Shimel’s being on the wrong side of history
regarding abortion and the right for anyone to marry anyone.

jw1

teenlaqueefa · October 16, 2014, 5:11pm

I agree. Complaining about the question is, IMO, the height of cowardice, ignorance and stupidity.

artemisia · October 16, 2014, 5:13pm

Yeah. The GOP are pretty much cowards. They don’t want people to vote because they know they’ll lose badly. They don’t want people to know what they stand for because they know they’ll lose badly. Maybe they should realize the problem isn’t with the system, but with their beliefs. But they won’t.

jb · October 16, 2014, 5:18pm

Primacy of federal law. If you believe a state law is unconstitutional at the federal level, you can refuse to defend it at the federal level, regardless of what’s in Wisconsin’s Constitution. It’s a pretty easy argument to make that an interracial marriage ban violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but that’s too much a slippery slope to legal gay marriage for conservative ideologues, so they have to dance around the subject and sound like racist idiots in the process. The idea that dodging the question would make him look better makes me seriously question his sanity. He still has a shot at the job, though, which makes me a very sad Wisconsinite.

antisachetdethe · October 16, 2014, 5:26pm

Wisconsin Oath of Office. Note that the Federal Constitution is listed first

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/gab_forms/4/gab_154_official_oath_rev_12_09_pdf_13934.pdf

jinnj · October 16, 2014, 5:29pm

the hypothetical was absurd … Wisconsin, actually, probably, was never a state that had that law …

So, I just had to go with my true feelings on the subject …

tigersharktoo · October 16, 2014, 5:30pm

No, your answer was senseless.

bignose · October 16, 2014, 5:30pm

“Now that’s an absurd hypothetical because the U.S. Supreme Court resolved that issue 60 years ago,”

…Which hasn’t stopped the anti-judicial-activism GOP from bringing a rash of cases before the court in their attempts to overturn, or chip away at, “settled” law in their favor.

frankly_my_dear · October 16, 2014, 5:31pm

What he should have said at the time was that it is not the duty of the AG to defend indefensible laws in court. It is the duty of the AG to enforce the law, whether he or she agrees with it or not, but if a law is challenged in court, it is the duty of the AG to render his best legal judgment on whether the law is defensible or not to the State. But enforcing a law and defending that law in court are two different things.

That’s what he should have said, but that would be telling the truth and this is something that Republicans try to avoid because hearing the truth upsets their base.

wiscojoe · October 16, 2014, 5:32pm

“And Wisconsin, actually, probably, was never a state that had that law.”

No probably about it. Wisconsin never banned interracial marriage.

fourlegsgood · October 16, 2014, 5:34pm

No, what’s “senseless” was your bullshit answer. Enjoy the fail! since it will be lasting.

jinnj · October 16, 2014, 5:42pm

While there may have been an absurd quality to the question - He chose to answer it - and in so doing revealed much about his character … or more accurately his lack there of.

If there is an issue that is essentially a matter of ‘conscience’ - a matter of pure ethical principles vs ‘following orders’ / blindly adhering to bad rules / laws - you can count on the coward Brad Schimel to be the weasel and roboticly & unquestioningly go along with the existing rules - moral issues be damned.

sniffit · October 16, 2014, 5:43pm

Teatroll Rosetta Stone: “DAMNIT! You were only supposed to know that I’m a homophobe bigot, not that I’m also a racist!!!”