More rubbish from your local fishwrap's editorial board, decrying State Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's objection to the four allegedly "conservative" members of the court's refusal to reappoint learned counsel John Dawson to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.
The edit board mandarins quote Justice David Prosser, the subject of a current Judicial Commission prosecution — which those same mandarins just happen to oppose — complaining about the Chief Justice putting her and two of her colleagues' objections to Prosser's refusal in writing.
Evidently the broad irony of Justice Prosser granting an "interview" with the editorial board to complain about Chief Justice Abrahamson's publication of a letter completely eludes the edit board's deep thinkers.
Or else they're depending on it eluding the mugs to whom they cater.
"And that word ['corrupt'] was used," bitches Justice Prosser to the Journal Communications, Inc. organ, without revealing the context, nor, apparently, do the editorialists see fit to ask for that context, as not providing it plays into the false equivalencies between the court's factions the local paper is in the business of fallaciously promoting.
How's this for a false equivalency: Three of the Supreme Court's four "conservatives" have been — or are being — prosecuted for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Among the Chief Justice and Justices N. Patrick Crooks and Ann Walsh Bradley? Zero ethics prosecutions in total.
And, strangely enough, when those same four alleged "conservative" justices pouted in their respective chambers for more than an hour during one of the court's open administrative conferences, Messrs. David Haynes, Ernst-Ulrich Franzen, et al's silence was conspicuous.
But now their laughably self-righteous hypocrisy is palpable.
2 comments:
Edit board doesn't make it clear, but it appears to be quoting Prosser's quote given to the JS for the earlier story. The edit board does not quote him beyond what was in earlier story. He may or may not have spoken with them, but that particular quote has been published before.http://m.jsonline.com/151182085.htm
Thanks. Nevertheless the irony is undiminished. Observers may also recall the fuss made when Justice Bradley released to reporters purportedly private emails among the justices, when both Justices Prosser and Roggensack had done similarly. In fact Justice Roggensack made available during one of the court's open conferences a sheaf of inter-chambers correspondence to the press. I don't recall the JS making any fuss about that.
Post a Comment