So how long befor Judge Bruce Schroeder is signing a deal with Fox?

[stevebreeze]

He would have to resign but there is money to be made.
Rittenhouse was on Carlson tonight.

[kelly1mm]

1. The Judge has run twice as a Democrat (once

For DA and once for WI state Senate). I would doubt most Democrats would seek positions on Fox News.

[iemanja]

2. That's obviously a lie

He can't be a Democrat. He must have lied on his filing papers because a Rep has a harder time winning in his area.

Note, I'm calling the judge a liar, not the poster.

[onenote]

4. It's not a lie. But it also occurred forty years ago. And thus irrelevant.

He's in his late 70s. The idea that he's going to sign on with Fox News is ludicrous.

[iemanja]

5. Is there anything in how he ran that trial that says

Democrat to you? He was on Fox News tonight, according to another poster.

[Sympthsical]

11. He has a long history of being pro-defendant's rights

Which is a fairly liberal thing, imo.

People are confusing old school with right-winger. He's old school and conservative in that way people his age often are.

But it doesn't mean he's a right-wing Trumpist. People started making that all up once they realized the trial was not going to go the way they wanted.

[iemanja]

13. He wouldn't let the lawyers refer to the victims as victims.

They were supposed to call them rioters and looters. Does he do that in all his trials, or only for White Supremacists?

[kelly1mm]

15. Does that change the fact that he ran as a Democrat

Twice?

[iemanja]

19. He CLAIMED to be a Democrat

That doesn't mean he was one or, more pertinently, is one now. Maybe he was ideologically aligned with Dixiecrats, since it was 40 years ago. What aversion do you think people that ascribe to such beliefs today have to Fox News?

You invoked that as a so-called reason why he would never "seek a position" on Fox News, when the man appeared on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. You assumed, without any evidentiary basis, that he is somehow liberal or progressive, when nothing in his behavior points to that. The question in the OP is about Fox News after all.

[kelly1mm]

22. Both President Obama and President Biden

Have been on Fox News. Are they now seeking a paid position on the channel? Any link to any evidence this Judge is seeking a position on Fox News? I would be HAPPY (unlike you) to admit I was wrong and apologize for my assertions. I eagerly await your links …..

[kelly1mm]

25. Please provide a link where the Judge was on Fox

News. I will HAPPILY admit my error if he was on Fox News!

[brush]

21. Forty years ago though. Reagan started off as a Democrat too.

[kelly1mm]

23. He has run in two partisan races, both as a Democrat

That was my only assertion. If you have evidence to the contrary I am all ears!

[Sympthsical]

18. Yes, he does it in all of his trials.

This joins the other billion things in this case that fall under the category of, "Information readily known if people would have simply attempted to seek it out." It gets repeated and repeated, then answered and answered, and then repeated again no matter how many times it is corrected.

He makes it a regular practice for people not to be referred as "victims" in self-defense cases, because he believes the term is prejudicial against defendants. He has done it many, many times. It was not Rittenhouse specific.

Do you see why I think people should be pissed at the media here? They made a huge deal out of something that was common practice with him. They actively misinformed you. You should be furious at them instead of the judge. Getting people all riled up at the judge was the object of the exercise.

At this juncture, I'd say it worked a peach.

[iemanja]

20. well, that's bizarre

It's not like there is any question whether those men died.

[Sympthsical]

24. There are other words easily used

I believe the one I heard most often during the trial was decedent.

I read a few profiles about the judge, and people who've had cases before him all said he is very protective of defendant's rights in court. Which explains why he blew a gasket over the 5th Amendment stuff and attempts to sneak in inadmissible evidence.

But it was also said he sentences firmly. One saying I read was, "You want him as a defendant during trial, but you never want him to sentence you."

[Tomconroy]

31. Some of those fair guys are long ball hitters.

[Zeitghost]

29. It's standard

When a self defense claim is in play.

[Meowmee]

27. Not so....

“Schroeder has been the subject of controversy during his judicial career. In 1987, he received attention for his order requiring HIV/AIDS testing for convicted prostitutes.[16] He developed a reputation for being tough on defendants in court and in sentencing. As a result, hundreds of defendants assigned to his court have requested to be transferred to another judge.[17]“

[Sympthsical]

28. I'd read that

You actually just reminded me that I meant to look up the sex worker thing.

He has a reputation for being very harsh on sentencing. Very very. Which I noted.

But I've read that he has a thing about defendent's rights. Maybe I'm characterizing it that way. I read these articles last week. But it was agreed he takes the idea of a fair trial very seriously.

I didn't see anything during this trial that would lead me to believe otherwise.

[Meowmee]

30. He was biased in favor of this defendant

But he has a reputation apparently of being so harsh on defendants not just in sentencing but during the trial that “ hundreds” have requested another judge. Yet KR nor his lawyers did request not another judge.

[Sympthsical]

33. That isn't evidence of the claim

When the prosecution violated the 5th and 6th Amendments in addition to trying to sneak in evidence ruled inadmissible, those were three huge honking reasons the judge could've used to fling the whole case out the window.

He didn't.

When the prosecution wanted to submit blurry drone footage that their entire case then rested upon after their witnesses exploded in their face, the judge allowed it despite lengthy and strenuous objections by the defense. Had the drone footage enhancement been disallowed, the prosecution would've had no case whatsoever.

I have reasons - strong ones, I think - to believe the judge was not biased during this trial.

I have yet to see very convincing ones in the other direction.

[Meowmee]

35. Iyo

But actually he was very obviously biased in favor of this defendant. It would be interesting to see which defendants have requested another judge and what has happened in the past trials that caused these requests. In addition to the obvious bias he is so obviously out of control and unprofessional that it is apparent to many that his demeanor alone puts everything he does into question.

[Sympthsical]

36. You just keep asserting this bias without evidence

I've given my opinion and supplied the facts on which it is based. Clear facts pertaining to this case.

"He was very obviously biased."

Ok. What's your evidence?

I've provided mine.

[Meowmee]

38. You haven't provided evidence

You provide your interpretation. And you left out the “fact” that he is apparently actually usually very harsh on defendants and you said the exact opposite. He is harsh on some defendants, so much so that they know this in advance and 100s have asked for a different judge. But not KR or his lawyers who he bent over backwards to help.

[kelly1mm]

7. Maybe you should google his wilkipedia entry.

I will await your retraction/apology.

[iemanja]

8. I'm supposed to apologize for calling the judge a liar?

perhaps I should have just said he was a Klansman.

[kelly1mm]

9. Yes. When presented with facts that contradict

Your assertion your should apologize for your incorrect assertion and move on.

[iemanja]

12. I do not aplogize

It's hardly unprecedented for political candidates to run under a party they don't align with politically. It happens all the time in areas where, for example, Republicans can't get elected. How do you know that wasn't the case with this judge?

If you think it so preposterous that he would sign with Fox News, why did he go on Tucker Carlson's show tonight? Is that something a good Democrat would do, to celebrate his helping a man get away with two counts of murder?

Frankly, I find your determination to defend that judge's character, when he clearly has none, to be offensive.

[kelly1mm]

14. Ok, you do you! You asserted it was a lie

That he ran as a Democrat twice. The facts say he did. You can continue to live in your fantasy world but I am moving on.

[iemanja]

16. No, I did not

I said the judge likely lied on his paperwork. I didn't say that you were telling a lie. Meanwhile, you ignore the fact he went on Fox news tonight.

[kelly1mm]

17. Ok, lets break this down and 'assume' he lied

On his paperwork, did he nonetheless run as a Democrat? If so your assertion was factually incorrect.

[Dr. Strange]

43. Jesus, it's like frickin' Q-Anon groupies.

He was appointed by a Democrat and he's always run as a Democrat. Why are people creating conspiracy theories for this?

[kelly1mm]

26. Please provide a link where the Judge was on

Fox News tonight. I don’t watch that channel so I don’t know.

[Hoyt]

3. I too am not convinced Schroeder was unfair. He was originally appointed by Dem governor.

Rittenhouse should have been convicted of something significant. The lawmakers who allowed that pissant to swagger down the street with a rifle around his neck, should too.

[LeftInTX]

6. He's been on that bench since 1984! The position is non-partisan.

36 years is a long time!

[Deuxcents]

10. True. I read he has never had an opponent at the polls

He definitely needs to be reviewed for a few job performances

[stevebreeze]

41. I live in what was once a very Republican area and

There are many here who have rune as an "R" that are very Democratic leaning.

[radius777]

34. The judge is an old white Dixiecrat

who would be perfect on Fox News, ie there to complain about 'wokeness' and all of those 'colored people' wanting justice and stuff.

If Rittenhouse was black or brown we all know how the case would've gone. If Rittenhouse was a white anti-racist protester (such as one of the victims) we also know how that would've gone.

The system is built on the 'algorithm' of white supremacy and spits out predictable results.

[jcmaine72]

37. Schroeder could be the next Charles Krauthammer

Only with a paralyzed sense of decency, justice and humanity instead of paralyzed legs.

[Paladin]

42. Right after he gives Rittenhouse an Expert Marksman medal, and a box of .223 ammo to go with it.