October 29, 2009

Your Bradley Foundation dollars at work

The other day Marquette University visiting professor of law Richard Esenberg enthused about how the Bradley Foundation "funds" the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, a tank where thinking is done.

The following bit of think tankery is currently on WPRI display:
Three liberals [sic] on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are ... essentially trying to get one of their colleagues un-elected. Their shady effort to force Justice Mike Gableman to recuse himself from criminal cases is merely a veiled attempt by his ideological opponents on the Court to nullify the [2008] election.
Blockbuster stuff, yes? Unfortunately, one searches in vain throughout the attendant verbiage for any support to these claims.

In reality, an attorney filed a motion with the court seeking Gableman's recusal from hearing a criminal matter. The case was scheduled for oral argument last week, on October 21.

A few days prior to that, three justices reportedly made a statement expressing a perfectly legitimate procedural concern over whether oral argument should go forward, in light of the fact that no disposition on the party's motion in the case had yet issued.

The court, on a voice vote, decided that the arguments should proceed despite the still-pending motion. One of the judges who voted to continue to the substance of the case's sentence credit issues without ruling on the motion was Michael Gableman.

He sat and listened, but refrained from question or comment.

That's about the size of it. Now if Mr. Christian Schneider of the Bradley-funded Wisconsin Policy Research Institute has any evidence whatsoever for the "shady" conspiracy which he's accusing three sitting justices of participating in, he'd probably do well to present it.


Display Name said...

Without having followed the proceedings in the same detail as you have, isn't it true that one of the strongest arguments against any similar rule would be that, for example, WMC could simply donate a triggering amount to any or all of the justices they'd like to see recused? Or did someone think of a way around that?

illusory tenant said...

Watch this space. I have a theory.

Anonymous said...

Waiver provisions were recommended by several at the hearing and already built into LWV proposal.