Asking the Supreme Court to reverse the panel's conclusions.
I. Did the Honorable Michael J. Gableman willfully violate SCR 60.06(3)(c), Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct during his 2008 campaign for election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and thereby engage in judicial misconduct pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a)?Yes but thereby no, to be precise. It's remarkable that anybody would need to explain why one sitting judge lying about another sitting judge during a Supreme Court election is maybe not a good thing.
Answered by the Judicial Conduct Panel: No.
It's remarkable that anybody would need to explain why one sitting judge lying about another sitting judge during a Supreme Court election is maybe not a good thing.
ReplyDeleteExactly so. Judge Deininger found "that the advertisement is misleading." As I read his opinion, he found the ad knowingly misleading. Judge Fine similarly found that the ad "misrepresent(ed) a fact."
Perhaps I read too much into these opinions. But the Commission's supreme court brief (p. 2) points out that both these judges, a majority in other words, found fault with the ad's misrepresentation.
Given this background, I'm struck by the blandly uninformative formulation of the Statement of the Issue. The discipline panel may well have recommended dismissal but as I read the panel decision, and as Tom seems to agree, a majority correctly perceived that this was despite the ad's lie, not because it didn't lie. And, if this characterization is correct, it should be construed as a finding of fact, thus entitled to great deference on review.
I certainly claim no expertise in the procedure, but the court's statement in Wis. Jud. Comm. v. Ziegler, 108 WI 47, para. 24 ("This court accepts the findings of fact of the Judicial Conduct Panel unless they are clearly erroneous") seems quite clear.
The brief should have undertaken at least some attempt to exploit the most favorable aspect of the record from the Commission's point of view. In fact, the brief doesn't appear to address the standard of review at all; a significant flaw, in my opinion.
Am I missing something?
No sir.
ReplyDelete