[James Bopp] successfully argued in 2009 that State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman could not be disciplined for a campaign ad that said opponent Louis Butler "found a loophole" while representing a sex offender appealing his conviction.If by successfully argued you mean failed to win your motion to dismiss, sure. More generally, success is measured by succeeding.
Once again: the party arguing the "loopholes" was the State. Butler's position obtained from the plain language of the Wisconsin statute which barred the victim's prior sexual history from being introduced as evidence at trial.* And ten out of ten appellate judges agreed.
Under different circumstances self-described conservatives assert their faithful devotion to the law's plain language, except when as a matter of political expediency hypocrisy is more convenient.
And all three judges who heard Bopp's oral presentation — convened on Gableman's motion, it's important to emphasize — nevertheless found that Gableman violated the State code of judicial ethics.
So it's not clear to me where success enters into any of this.
The entire parade of ugly circumstances, initiated by Michael Gableman and carried forward by James Bopp, was a blight.
* Atty. Bopp: It is a loophole, that had nothing to do with [the defendant's] guilt or innocence.No, it didn't "turn out to be." It was all along, right from day one.
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?
Atty. Bopp: Well, uh, it turned out to be, yes.