July 1, 2011

Two temper tantrums and a microphone

In this Fox 6 Exclusive.

"And stormed into his chambers."

It bears repeating that three of the four justices who formed the majority in Huebsch v. Dane County Circuit Court have had ethics complaints filed or an ethics investigation undertaken against them.

Justice Ziegler received a public reprimand from the Supreme Court for failing to disclose her financial relationships to parties before the court when she was a circuit judge in Washington County. Gableman was charged with lying about his political opponent in the 2008 election that placed him on the bench. While the Supreme Court split on Gableman's fate, he was found by a three-man panel of appeals court judges to have violated two provisions of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Ethics. Gableman failed to win dismissal of the Judicial Commission's complaint against him, and it remains pending.* Now, the Prosser investigation.

It also bears repeating that these same judges preside over the ethical responsibilities and behavior of the State of Wisconsin's attorneys.

Some may recall the celebrated case of Beams v. Motes.

* Partly because Wisconsin's statutory framework dealing with ethical violation prosecutions is incoherent. They were supposed to fix this.

Now it needs fixing more than ever.


xoff said...

Prosser was just defending himself when the microphone leaped into his hand. Honest.

illusory tenant said...

"Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asked Justice David Prosser to seek therapy to manage his anger." But Bradley's perspective can't be trusted, according to the local wingnuttery.

Mike said...

Well that was cringe-worthy. Prosser was a fraction of a second from throwing the mic on the floor and stomping it. He seems determined to confirm all the worst suspicions about him, the man can't help himself. As RoJo would say, when in a hole, keep digging.

Six of the seven Justices witnessed the incident, three participating if you include Roggensack, who broke it up. The reporter said that means the six would have to recuse themselves and a three-judge panel appointed by Abrahamson would decide on discipline. That's new, to me anyway.

Pyrrho said...

Why does he do these things? He sure is not making it easier for those of us who have tried to defend him...

Pyrrho said...


I think that Fox 6 may not be correct in how any disciplinary matter would be decided. Normally, there is a three-judge panel that initially makes a recommendation on the discipline, and then the Supreme Court would issue a decision based on that recommendation.

I don't believe the three-judge panel actually can issue any discipline, and I don't think the Court can act without a quorum. There isn't any constitutional process in such a case, so I'm not sure that any discipline could be implemented. Some states have a rule that if all the members of a court have to recuse, they all get to decide the case. But Crooks wouldn't have to recuse, so that wouldn't happen anyway.

If anybody more knowledgeable of the law on this can shed some light, I'd be curious to hear what they have to say.

gnarlytrombone said...

Why does he do these things

I don't think a lot of thought went into it. Which is kinda the point.

Ordinary Jill said...

Thanks; now I have Beck stuck in my head. Oh, well; I guess it's better than Ted Nugent.

illusory tenant said...

Beck is great!