The article doesn't seem to discuss Justice Bradley's highly questionable - and possibly unethical - revelation of this information.WI SCR 60.04(1):(m) A judge may not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.
Or see subs (1)(d) and (e) and then sub (3)(a).
Can't wait for Prof. Esenberg's qualifed cushioning of the blow about how it is "hardly clear" whether this is representative of Prosser's temperment or how it "appears to be" a deal lesser than big.
"appears to be" a deal lesser than big.lol
Sykes will explain it all in the morning.
I'm not going to defend Prosser here. There is no question that his actions were completely inappropriate. However, it was also totally inappropriate to reveal what happened in a closed conference. I also suspect that, if everybody decided to air out what happened in closed conferences, we would all be pretty shocked by what all the justices do.
Pyrrho, you are defending Prosser by not holding him to the same standard that you hold other justices to. I see no reason to make excuses for Prosser and Bradley is not the issue at the moment, no matter how much you might wish she were. Prosser is a rude, short-tempered jerk. He has been on the court too long.
"I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted. . . . They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing."Does Prosser really want everyone to think that Shirley and Ann are always picking on him?
Free Lunch:Where did I hold Prosser to a different standard than any other Justice? I acknowledge that his actions in this case were completely inappropriate. However, Bradley's decision to release this information is much more problematic than Prosser's loss of his temper.I will, however, defend Justice Prosser against your completely unfounded claim that he is a "rude, short-tempered jerk." If you want to use this as an example that he is short tempered, go ahead. But he is neither rude nor a jerk, and anybody who has ever met him knows what a genuinely nice and extremely polite man he is.
"I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted"I'm sure he finds this sort of reasoning compelling when defendants employ it.Is this that conservative ideology of personal responsibility I hear so much about? "I did wrong, but it's entirely justified cuz some bitch was a bitch."
By the way, Pyrrho, if you watch the court's January 31 open administrative conference, you can see Justice Roggensack distributing copies of the court's internal emails among the other justices, adding, "and I plan to distribute 'em to the press." (And, not surprisingly, the emails are in reference to another issue involving Gableman.)
And, a bit later on, Justice Prosser reads aloud from the court's internal emails. Not saying two (or even three) wrongs make a right -- if there was a wrong at all -- but presumably SCR 60.04(1)(m) might find similar application to the other justices.
All those suggestions and shalls are quite the imposition on free speech, aren't they?
It remains to be seen where Messrs. Gableman and Bopp would draw the line with respect to the Supreme Court's authority to police the ethical behavior of the judiciary.
Post a Comment