The Allen motion ... has been followed by nine additional recusal motions against members of this court [seven of which are "against" Gableman]. The Wisconsin State Public Defender's office has invited the entire defense bar to file recusal motions against [Gableman] in criminal cases. The number and savagery of these motions is unprecedented and amounts to a frontal assault on the court. The court should have denied Allen's motion quickly, without comment. This would have avoided exposing controversy within the court.Or, alternatively, Gableman should have anticipated the controversy that he engendered by engaging in scurrilous political subterfuge.
Savagery, indeed. Sorry, but it's mighty hard to sympathize.
That the court today divided 3-3 on Allen's motion to disqualify Gableman (who did not participate*) means the motion is neither granted nor denied.** Notably, Justice Patrick Crooks wrote separately to indicate that he was fully prepared to deny Allen's motion, thus providing a fourth and decisive vote in that direction, had it not been for Atty. James Bopp's shenanigans as Gableman's defense lawyer during and after Gableman's hearing on ethics charges in September.
So beware those nasty unintended consequences. Heckuva job, etc.
* Which may seem obvious, but according to the lead opinion, Gableman was undecided for some time over whether to participate on the more impersonal question of whether the court, as an institution, had the authority to overrule an individual judge of that court's own decision not to disqualify himself from a case.
** Rather, the motion is "not granted." Furthermore, as Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson put it: "As a practical matter, Justices Prosser, Roggensack, and Ziegler are implicitly telling all litigants in Wisconsin that they need to go to the federal courts to seek relief from a Wisconsin justice who they believe is biased."
Perhaps that's another clue as to the meaning of "Federalist Society."
Earlier: Bopp's demagoguing was completely unnecessary.
I would think that you should only be able to force Gableman and Ziegler to recuse themselves if your opponent is a member of WMC or another organization that bought them.
ReplyDeleteWisconsin has a Supreme Court with corrupt members. They chose to seat members who have brought the judiciary into disrespect. Shame on the reactionary, corporate majority.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how the erstwhile enablers and cheerleaders for Gableman now make sense of such consequences. Is there any feeling of shame at having broken the machine they were trying to rig?
They continue to insist that attempts to remove Gableman on due process of law grounds are a violation of the intent of the electorate which, in the present case, is roughly 12% of registered Wisconsin voters. Yet the far more overwhelming intent of the electorate, it seems to me, was to not give a rodent's hindquarters.
ReplyDeleteSee paragraph 245. Where do we begin? Apparently trespasses can be indulged by diversions, and that always gives you an a'okay judge. If only Justice Brent Benjamin did more "For The Sake Of The Kids" he might not be famous in jurisprudence.
ReplyDeleteIt's not known whether the similar exemption was likewise on Justice Geske's mind when she said: "[Gableman's teevee] ad is awful on so many levels, from misportraying the role of the Supreme Court, misportraying the role of the public defender, appealing to the fear of citizens. We're sinking to new lows."
ReplyDeleteBy the way, ¶ 245, by introducing other acts evidence on Gableman's behalf, both supports and illustrates perfectly Abrahamson's desire for additional briefing.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion.
ReplyDelete"Which may seem obvious, but according to the lead opinion, Gableman was undecided for some time over whether to participate . . ."
ReplyDeleteIt is more precise to say that he did apparently participate before he withdrew from participation. See paragraph 11: "On February 4, 2010, Justice Gableman withdrew from further participation in the court's consideration of Allen's
recusal motions against Justice Gableman and withdrew his
separate writing in this matter."
So, did Gableman futz around on the recusal issue for 5 months as a holding action on the ethics case? Or is that just a coinkydink?
ReplyDeleteGawd, reading that opinion was depressing.
Thanks, and point taken. I had in mind this:
ReplyDelete¶14 During the court's long, drawn-out consideration of Allen's motions for his disqualification, Justice Gableman has alternated between participating and not participating in the consideration of the recusal motions directed to the court, finally withdrawing from participation on February 4, 2010.
Man, that's a nasty opinion. The knives aren't just out; they're flying around.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly has its moments. Despite written attempts by all three of the would-be motion deniers, Abrahamson is unimpressed by either the rigor of their logic or the substantive legal basis of their assertions.
ReplyDeleteShe believes the three have placed policy above and ahead of the law, conflicting positions that are contrary to the ideological profiles typically assigned respectively to "liberal" and "conservative" judges.
Most significant, I think, is Justice Crooks's reaction to the supplemental motion filed after Gableman's ethics hearing in September, which highlighted Gableman's lawyer's disparaging -- and, for many, deeply offensive -- remarks both on and off the record.
But not for the contents of that supplement, this decision might well have gone 4-2 against the defendant, Allen.
(I flatter myself for having provided here the partial transcript of Bopp's remarks that made its way into the supplement prior to the release of the court of appeals' official transcript.)
So, did Gableman futz around on the recusal issue for 5 months as a holding action on the ethics case? Or is that just a coinkydink?
ReplyDeleteFun to speculate, ain't it. In the meantime, oral argument in WJC v. Gableman set for April 16.
** Rather, the motion is "not granted." Furthermore, as Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson put it: "As a practical matter, Justices Prosser, Roggensack, and Ziegler are implicitly telling all litigants in Wisconsin that they need to go to the federal courts to seek relief from a Wisconsin justice who they believe is biased."
ReplyDeleteThis appears true and should be paid by the Justice, not the litigant.
Perhaps Gableman still has some of the $80K that poured in from Manhattan and Denver during the final weeks of his campaign in furtherance of the First Amendment rights of Wisconsin voters.
ReplyDelete