We have not seen this latest motion, which was filed Monday, but Prof. Richard Esenberg of Marquette Law School assures us their "rationale" is "primarily (though not quite entirely) based on the now infamous Reuben Mitchell ad and certain statements made by Gableman's lawyer, Jim Bopp, in the course of defending Justice Gableman on ethics charges stemming from the ad."
Those two things. "Not quite entirely" = certain understatement.
Bopp: It is a loophole, that had nothing to do with [Mitchell's] guilt or innocence.Yes, somehow the argument was magically transformed from "a loophole" to "not a loophole." Please. Either it was or it wasn't.
Judge Snyder: "Loophole" has kind of an emotional ring to it. It wasn't so much a loophole as it just was a properly argued application of the rape shield law, was it not?
Bopp: Well, uh, it turned out to be, yes.
The law didn't change. Nay, not one jot nor tittle, as they say.
And we have yet to hear Mr. Bopp explain how the admission or non-admission of evidence* — upon which juries base their findings of guilt or innocence — has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
Apparently had a jury found Mitchell not guilty, Mr. Bopp would have nevertheless found him guilty and yet accused others of a "willingness to subvert our system." In the course of defending Mike Gableman.
Of course Bopp has a First Amendment right to mouth absurdities.
Coincidentally, a notorious and "shadowy" third-party Mike Gableman fan club, the Coalition For America's Families, brazenly courted a defamation suit for pulling a similar stunt, pronouncing guilty a defendant whose conviction had been reversed. With friends like these, etc.
This is how these people think, and every indication is that Mike Gableman thinks this way too. And that is what these motions for recusal are primarily based upon, not simply two discrete events.
* In this case, evidence that is barred by the Wisconsin legislature, a fact both acknowledged and affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court.