Gableman positions "incomprehensible"

This was mentioned here several weeks ago:

The Green Bay Press Gazette noted that Justice Mike Gableman criticized then-Justice Louis Butler, his opponent in the election, for accepting a $4,500 campaign contribution from a lawyer representing someone in a case before the state supreme court.

"I think reasonable people would look at $4,500 from a lawyer who's representing a litigant in a case that a justice is currently taking under advisement would be a matter of some concern," Gableman said.

Yet now that Gableman is a Supreme Court Justice, his position suddenly changes and he now says no contribution, regardless of the amount, could influence a judge and cause him or her to withdraw from hearing a case involving the contributor.

It's incomprehensible that Gableman can hold such conflicting positions.

Sheboygan Press.

Actually it's perfectly in character that Gableman would say one thing during his political campaign, continue to insist on that thing during his defense to ethics charges, and then claim never to have believed any of it once he ascended the bench. And that's exactly what he did.

Much like the enduring (negative) caricature of a politician. But don't be cynical, they tell us. After all, Supreme Court justices have a constitutional right to lie, which they may exercise at any time.

Any appearances of impropriety are all in your head (even if you happen to find yourself haled before that court). They tell us.

The next written brief in Gableman's ongoing ethics investigation (now in its third year without any resolution) is due Thursday.