A three-judge panel considering an ethics complaint against State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman today dismissed a request by Gableman that the state Judicial Commission be barred from continuing its case.Judicial panel denies latest Gableman manoeuvre
[Style point: Capitalize State when referring to one of the 50.]
9 comments:
iT:
You're a tremendous resource, a local treasure. I generally read the J-S every day, but not today and I would've missed this little nugget but for your efforts. For which, many thanks.
You're far too kind, as usual.
We'd adopt you, but we already have a five-person household plus a cockapoo and a frozen gerbil (another story).
Hope you're at Drinking Liberally Jan. 20. I'll finally make another one, the last being about two+ years ago.
So can we count this as yet another time that he has been reversed?
I don't see why not, if he can claim to have "presided over" 9,000 uncontested traffic tickets by way of calculating his rate of reversal (which is exactly what he did).
A "manoeuvre" would require a change of venue well beyond Waukesha County.
Isn't Gableman real sin that he spoke against a fellow judge? Woe unto him! (but isn’t that something that is needed?)
When warranted, certainly.
"they taint all judges and justices."
If they want to collectively look good, they must be willing to collectively look bad. Personally, I think each should stand or fall on what they do or don't do. Good judges covering for the bad was one of the many problems in Nazi Germany.
Post a Comment