I think that the three judge panel's decision to recommend dismissal of ethics charges against Justice Michael Gableman is the right outcome. I doubt that we really want tribunals passing upon the truth and falsity of campaign speech — even for judges.*Really, what's the point of holding judges to any ethical standards at all, then? They're just politicians anyway (contra separation of powers doctrine, evidently the judiciary is just another political branch).
I'm not sure who "we" is, but apparently it's not the same "we" that elected the folks who drafted, debated, amended, voted on, passed, and signed into law Wisconsin Statutes §§ 757.81-95 (the legislative, procedural means to identify and discipline judicial misconduct).
Of course, we shouldn't have to hold judges to ethical behavior. One might expect that by the time they get to be judges, they would already be roughly familiar with the concepts. In fact, most are.
Certainly "we" should not be celebrating getting away scot-free as a "right outcome." Doing so is precisely the sort of "situational morality" political conservatives are otherwise poised to condemn.
And, lest we forget, it was a condemnation of so-called "loopholes" that started this unforsaken ball to rolling in the first place.
* I comment here instead, so as not to be embargoed.