Sunday, March 29, 2015

WI Supreme Court Won't Hear Arguments Regarding John Doe



At the beginning of the month, I reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court was taking the unusual steps of considering making the oral arguments regarding the upcoming John Doe hearings secret. The John Doe investigation is regarding the illegal collaboration between Scott Walker, his campaign and dark money special interest groups such as Wisconsin Club for Growth.

On Friday, the Supreme Court went from unusual to disturbingly bizarre by deciding that they won't hear any oral arguments (emphasis mine):
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday it would not hear arguments — in secret or in public — as it considers whether to allow an investigation to continue that has looked into whether Gov. Scott Walker's campaign illegally worked with conservative groups in recall elections.

"The prospect of oral argument creates severe tension between important and conflicting priorities," the court wrote, citing the long tradition of open courts and the secrecy of the John Doe.

Instead, the court will decide the matter based on hundreds of pages of briefs that have been filed in the cases, mostly in secret, because the court also rejected a special prosecutor's argument that the secrecy genie has already largely escaped the bottle.

The investigation has been stalled for more than a year, and the court's decision is expected to determine whether it can be revived or shut down for good. Its ruling will likely come by this summer, just as the Republican governor ramps up an expected bid for the presidency.
The Court also ruled against allowing the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from intervening in the hearings, locking down the secrecy even more.

The Court claims that oral arguments would cause conflict between open courts and the secrecy of the Doe investigation. In reality, the conflict for them is between upholding the law and their indebtedness to the very same special interests involved in the cases.

The fact is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court shouldn't even be issuing orders regarding these cases at all.

As previously reported, four of the seven justices on the bench have received heavy support from these dark money special interest groups. So heavy that the special interest groups spent three out of every four dollars in the elections of David Prosser alone.

The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that judges and justices need to recuse themselves "when an interested party’s spending had a “disproportionate influence” in a case that was “pending or imminent.”'

It is more than obvious that this ruling would apply to the four corporate justice on the state supreme court. Why these justices are committing these injustices - and getting away with it - is beyond understanding.

15 comments:

  1. It is preposterous in this case. The order says that Wisconsin Eye suggested editing the video tape would be too difficult.

    Even Prosser dissented from the Order. DAVID PROSSER and yes, I mean that David Prosser wanted oral arguments to occur (and released as an edited tape due to Doe secrecy)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps Prosser's dissent is a ploy - perhaps his colleagues told him in advance their plan was to cancel oral arguments, and he dissented (as planned) to give the appearance of objectivity. With this kangaroo crew, anything is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unbelieveable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think it was a ploy, in fact, I think he was disappointed that he won't get a shot at the Prosecutors during oral.

    You can read the order here. http://media.jrn.com/documents/johndoeoralarguments.pdf It is not complicated. Prosser's dissent starts on page 11 of the document.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Why these justices are committing these injustices - and getting away with it - is beyond understanding."

    Spelling correction:

    "Why the$e justice$ are committing the$e injustice$ - and getting away with it - i$ beyond under$tanding."

    ... unle$$ you look at the $ituation for a $econd.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When is Walker ever going to be held accountable?? I have to give Walker credit for figuring out how to run his political EMPIRE like Tony Soprano. Quid pro quo, pay offs, dark money, dirty loans, back door illegal business deals... Walker has given hope to criminal minds across the nation, if not the world. Kudos Gov. Walker. Criminality never looked so good!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Walker's best asset has been his ability to stay one or two steps ahead of the sheriff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sheriff is in the same clown car, he's the one with the cowboy hat on.

      What we need here is a federal marshal.

      Delete
  8. Except that 2 of the 3 liberal judges — Bradley and Crooks — voted with the majority. Kind of blows your "bought and paid for" conspiracy theory but, what the heck! Go for it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blaska, How can you justify the blatant Conflicts of Interest with judges voting on Dark Money interests who paid for their elections? We'd love to read your "logic."

      Delete
    2. Didn't Bradley recuse herself?

      Delete
    3. Crooks isn't a liberal, Blaska, he's just not particularly crooked.

      Delete
  9. And "bought and paid for" David Prosser voted no. Otherwise, great theory, guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bradley is not on this case. Abrams dissented

      Delete