Here's why:
Notably, Justice Patrick Crooks wrote separately to indicate that he was fully prepared to deny Allen's motion [to get Gableman off of his case], 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.Unintended consequences.
Apparently Gableman is concerned about getting a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, and is troubled by "gratuitous personal attacks" and "personal criticisms" which might have a tendency to generate the appearance of judicial bias against the respondent, Gableman.
Who would have ever heard of such things.
Here's my question: If Justice Crooks recuses himself from future participation in Gableman's ethics case, will Crooks thereby be denying Gableman's First Amendment right to vote in a general election for the State Supreme Court justice of his choosing?
What about the 499,636 Wisconsinites who voted for Justice Crooks?
What a move. The six justices were split 3-3 on whether the Court even has the ability to remove a jsutice from the case (the "conservative" three saying no without ever having the issue briefed or argued). By moving against Crooks in this ethics case, he won't be able to sit on the panel as it takes another look at that issue. That leaves five, and you know how they are going to come out.
ReplyDeleteAnother victory for "judicial restraint."