Actually it's more of a stark contrast plus needling example, thus:
Gableman said his approach to cases involving law enforcement, for example, will show a clear choice between [incumbent Justice Louis] Butler and him.The clear inference being that Butler does “look for ways” that offenders may escape. Because on the "stark contrast" view, everything Butler has done, Gableman will do the opposite.
"My philosophy is to apply the plain language of the law and not to look for ways that offenders may escape the consequences of their actions," Gableman said.
It's one thing to characterize Butler's opinions, or his position in concurrence or dissent with respect to opinions written by other members of the court, as siding with criminal defendants. Certainly they may; after all, defendants occasionally win their appeals.
But when you start insinuating that Butler is proactively “looking for ways” to facilitate the escape of defendants from consequences, then you had better provide some support for that proposition. I would expect none to be forthcoming, unless Gableman is a mindreader, or is secretly taping Butler's conferences.
Gableman's rival Charlie Schutze, meanwhile, implies that Butler looks for ways offenders may not escape consequences:
"How can you hold someone liable for something they have no control over?" Schutze said. "That is such an incredible stretch of the law."But that's in reference to a civil case, not a criminal one.
Maybe Gableman and Schutze will mount a tag team offense against Butler, the former bemoaning Butler's propensity for sympathy with criminal plaintiffs, the latter decrying his attitude toward innocent corporate defendants. Both are apparently the telltale signs of a liberal jurisprude. And that's bad for business. Or something.
Ah well, see you next year.