Further to an earlier Capital Times editorial, I think it's long since about time that the "ethically-challenged" descriptor is dropped with respect to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette K. Ziegler.
It's over, she readily and immediately acknowledged the oversights, she paid a price, and she took her lumps in public from her own colleagues, who are likely among the people she respects the most.
In fact a more compelling argument might be made that Justice Ziegler is most likely to exercise greater care and is therefore least likely to put herself in breach of ethics, having presumably learned a valuable lesson regardless of the severity of her actions as a circuit court judge. And let's face it, they were relatively innocuous.
Individuals may keep paying themselves, in one sense or another, for past transgressions, but at some point, on the terms of the community at large, debt and restitution is paid in full. And it seems to me that point was reached some time ago in Justice Ziegler's case.
IMHO, as they say.
July 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you're asking to much of people because they got a good look at what was going on and they don't like it.
One thing most people can agree on is that we want fair courts. Now we wonder how much more is going on that we don't know about.
Anon,
The point is that J.Ziegler did NOT act unfairly. She was careless, but not unfair.
The point is that J.Ziegler did NOT act unfairly. She was careless, but not unfair.
There is no way we will ever know that, but it is with a cloud of suspicion that she will make every ruling.
Compiling her record and the last election, it makes people naturally want to second guess the motivation of any decision. This makes the court rather ineffective in the trust area.
Well said. Unfortunately, those who opposed her election will never let it go.
Post a Comment