"I think the most troubling aspect of the case is that we have the government trying to police political speech as to whether it's true or false," [Gableman's attorney, James] Bopp said. "That seems quite contrary to the First Amendment, which was to allow citizens to make those decisions when they go to the ballot box."No, what's troubling is judges ignoring their ethical responsibilities and interpreting the First Amendment as a political license to lie.
And those judges have an obligation not to lie to those citizens. Of course those judges can lie to those citizens if they want to, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't face professional sanctions for lying.
After all, the statutes are also an expression of the citizens' will and the citizens have a compelling interest in not being lied to by judges.
2 comments:
what's troubling is judges ignoring their ethical responsibilities and interpreting the First Amendment as a political license to lie
Exactly. For that matter, advocacy itself has its limits: had Gableman lied to the court in the course of representing a client on appeal, he would have been subject to sanction, Settipalli v. Settipalli, 2005 WI App 8. Apparently, though, to the Gableman camp it's OK to attain judicial office by lying to the electorate but don't you dare yourself lie to the lying judge. Who knows, though: now that the prospect of his hanging has concentrated his mind on the necessity of loopholes, maybe he'll also support the constitutional right of an advocate to lie to the court.
Great catch, by the way, picking up on the Judicial Commission findings which, near as I can tell, the local media haven't covered.
the prospect of his hanging has concentrated his mind on the necessity of loopholes
And the irony is irresistible.
Post a Comment