tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post3279499566393400352..comments2023-10-28T08:02:44.565-05:00Comments on illusory tenant: Who, exactly, is to blame?illusory tenanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-22892297284719048892010-02-13T10:12:07.263-06:002010-02-13T10:12:07.263-06:00Perhaps Gableman still has some of the $80K that p...Perhaps Gableman still has some of the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/wdc/itemized.php?id=103914&rb2=a" rel="nofollow">$80K</a> that poured in from Manhattan and Denver during the final weeks of his campaign in furtherance of the First Amendment rights of Wisconsin voters.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-84405385122604654392010-02-13T09:54:56.606-06:002010-02-13T09:54:56.606-06:00** Rather, the motion is "not granted." ...** Rather, the motion is "not granted." Furthermore, as Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson put it: "As a practical matter, Justices Prosser, Roggensack, and Ziegler are implicitly telling all litigants in Wisconsin that they need to go to the federal courts to seek relief from a Wisconsin justice who they believe is biased."<br /><br />This appears true and should be paid by the Justice, not the litigant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-14007927560999530372010-02-12T17:31:31.550-06:002010-02-12T17:31:31.550-06:00So, did Gableman futz around on the recusal issue ...<i>So, did Gableman futz around on the recusal issue for 5 months as a holding action on the ethics case? Or is that just a coinkydink?</i><br /><br />Fun to speculate, ain't it. In the meantime, oral argument in <i>WJC v. Gableman</i> set for <a href="http://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=38E213D9B395D78DB92A6238B16D861A?caseNo=2008AP002458&cacheId=&recordCount=0&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC" rel="nofollow">April 16</a>.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-12672578547961300242010-02-11T23:35:04.439-06:002010-02-11T23:35:04.439-06:00It certainly has its moments. Despite written atte...It certainly has its moments. Despite written attempts by all three of the would-be motion deniers, Abrahamson is unimpressed by either the rigor of their logic or the substantive legal basis of their assertions.<br /><br />She believes the three have placed policy above and ahead of the law, conflicting positions that are contrary to the ideological profiles typically assigned respectively to "liberal" and "conservative" judges.<br /><br />Most significant, I think, is Justice Crooks's reaction to the supplemental motion filed after Gableman's ethics hearing in September, which highlighted Gableman's lawyer's disparaging -- and, for many, deeply offensive -- remarks both on and off the record.<br /><br />But not for the contents of that supplement, this decision might well have gone 4-2 against the defendant, Allen.<br /><br />(I flatter myself for having provided here the partial transcript of Bopp's remarks that made its way into the supplement prior to the release of the court of appeals' official transcript.)illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-9582963705626955522010-02-11T22:39:51.539-06:002010-02-11T22:39:51.539-06:00Man, that's a nasty opinion. The knives aren&...Man, that's a nasty opinion. The knives aren't just out; they're flying around.Clutchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-66407056916444307272010-02-11T22:27:54.461-06:002010-02-11T22:27:54.461-06:00Thanks, and point taken. I had in mind this:
¶14 ...Thanks, and point taken. I had in mind this:<br /><br />¶14 During the court's long, drawn-out consideration of Allen's motions for his disqualification, Justice Gableman has alternated between participating and not participating in the consideration of the recusal motions directed to the court, finally withdrawing from participation on February 4, 2010.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-7955643854679646382010-02-11T17:13:56.294-06:002010-02-11T17:13:56.294-06:00So, did Gableman futz around on the recusal issue ...So, did Gableman futz around on the recusal issue for 5 months as a holding action on the ethics case? Or is that just a coinkydink?<br /><br />Gawd, reading that opinion was depressing.Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17160568834659305520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-18128109326792922802010-02-11T17:07:59.520-06:002010-02-11T17:07:59.520-06:00"Which may seem obvious, but according to the..."Which may seem obvious, but according to the lead opinion, Gableman was undecided for some time over whether to participate . . ."<br /><br />It is more precise to say that he did apparently participate before he withdrew from participation. See paragraph 11: "On February 4, 2010, Justice Gableman withdrew from further participation in the court's consideration of Allen's<br />recusal motions against Justice Gableman and withdrew his<br />separate writing in this matter."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-19249962561516291192010-02-11T16:10:28.840-06:002010-02-11T16:10:28.840-06:00The opinion.<a href="http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=47023" rel="nofollow">The opinion</a>.Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17160568834659305520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-50170319749390851442010-02-11T15:44:22.779-06:002010-02-11T15:44:22.779-06:00By the way, ¶ 245, by introducing other acts evide...By the way, ¶ 245, by introducing other acts evidence on Gableman's behalf, both supports and illustrates perfectly Abrahamson's desire for additional briefing.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-449585369776936422010-02-11T15:35:54.389-06:002010-02-11T15:35:54.389-06:00It's not known whether the similar exemption w...It's not known whether the similar exemption was likewise on <a href="http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=1831" rel="nofollow">Justice Geske</a>'s mind when she said: "[Gableman's teevee] ad is awful on so many levels, from misportraying the role of the Supreme Court, misportraying the role of the public defender, appealing to the fear of citizens. We're sinking to new lows."illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-14484239194929233662010-02-11T15:21:35.777-06:002010-02-11T15:21:35.777-06:00See paragraph 245. Where do we begin? Apparently...See paragraph 245. Where do we begin? Apparently trespasses can be indulged by diversions, and that always gives you an a'okay judge. If only Justice Brent Benjamin did more "For The Sake Of The Kids" he might not be famous in jurisprudence.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04647489967803458819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-46695564465351800932010-02-11T15:19:40.869-06:002010-02-11T15:19:40.869-06:00They continue to insist that attempts to remove Ga...They continue to insist that attempts to remove Gableman on due process of law grounds are a violation of the intent of the electorate which, in the present case, is roughly 12% of registered Wisconsin voters. Yet the far more overwhelming intent of the electorate, it seems to me, was to not give a rodent's hindquarters.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-61482771248621969692010-02-11T15:07:16.399-06:002010-02-11T15:07:16.399-06:00Wow.
I wonder how the erstwhile enablers and chee...Wow.<br /><br />I wonder how the erstwhile enablers and cheerleaders for Gableman now make sense of such consequences. Is there any feeling of shame at having broken the machine they were trying to rig?Clutchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2506514005426983269.post-8029140900109006462010-02-11T14:46:53.293-06:002010-02-11T14:46:53.293-06:00I would think that you should only be able to forc...I would think that you should only be able to force Gableman and Ziegler to recuse themselves if your opponent is a member of WMC or another organization that bought them.<br /><br />Wisconsin has a Supreme Court with corrupt members. They chose to seat members who have brought the judiciary into disrespect. Shame on the reactionary, corporate majority.Free Lunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272965187978654322noreply@blogger.com