Here is an example of how our public discourse ought to transpire.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a comment on Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem. I was disappointed when I read her initial comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick_us_57fbb68de4b068ecb5e0613f

I was pleased to read the thoughtful response that Colin Kaepernick made in defense of his actions.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/11/colin-kaepernick-on-supreme-court-justices-criticism-disappointing/

Finally, Justice Ginsburg did a noble thing. I can only speculate that the tone and tenor of Colin Kaepernick's comments help prompt this rethink.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/14/ruth_bader_ginsburg_walks_back_criticism_of_colin_kaepernick.html

It is humanizing to know that a supreme court justice can fall afoul of the rule: "Make sure the brain is engaged, before opening mouth." It is reassuring to find evidence in our current public sphere that folks, even supreme court justices, are able to acknowledge that they spoke out of ignorance, with limited knowledge, or without forethought. Furthermore, the individual who was unduly criticized did not respond in kind, but took to heart the advice of the First Lady, that is, to "Go High."

Thank you, Ruth and Colin, for providing us with an excellent example.

Wisconsin is back in the national news when a federal judge recently issued an order with respect to the voter id legislation or photo id law. In lieu of issuing a decision that the law is unconstitutional, the courts, to date, have accepted repeated assurances from state authorities that they will promptly implement any number of fixes to which they have agreed under the risk of violation of a court order. The national news outlets have picked up on the latest failure of the state to implement the required remedies. It would appear that those in charge of implementing the required remedies and the remedies to which all parties agreed have decided that a delaying tactic is in their interests. As repeated noncompliance is brought to the attention of the courts and hearings scheduled, election day draws nearer and nearer. We are already in the period of early voting in some locales. Despite court rulings to the contrary, these delaying tactics will result in the very results sought by the framers of the voter id law. It will simply become too late for corrective action. A significant percentage of the voting public will be disenfranchised. It is estimated that 9% of Wisconsin voters do not have the required identification. Nine percentage translates to 300,000 voters. When one couples this tool for disenfranchisement with others: reduced voting hours/days, limited polling places, and gerrymandered electoral districts, the cumulative impact of these seemingly incremental measures may have a significant impact on the upcoming elections within the state. This impact was designed and implemented by those with the power to do so and with the intent of solidifying their position by reducing the ability of the voter to hold them accountable and subject them to review via the ballot box. The federal courts appear to be the only source of corrective action to eliminate this threat to representative democracy within the state of Wisconsin.