Poll: Wisconsin Supreme Court Is Too Political

This is interesting, to say the least:

Two-thirds of respondents to the latest Wisconsin Public Radio-St. Norbert College survey feel the state Supreme Court is too “political.”

Wendy Scattergood is a survey analyst. She says the poll asked if the court is, “too mixed up in politics.”

People were then asked to define what that phrase meant:

“The number one thing people think, 'too mixed up in politics' means is that they feel like the court is really partisan. Seventeen percent of respondents felt that the court is too partisan. Others: similar kinds of things, saying that they're not above the fray, they're not neutral.”

Six percent cited “interpersonal fighting” amongst justices.

Now remember what I said about this just before the primary:

It was revealed that not only was Patience Roggensack receiving tons of campaign donations from out of state special interest groups, she tried to cover up the fact by playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws.

On top of that, she is also complicit to David Prosser's attack on fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley when she turned a blind eye to the crime and recused herself before there was even a case before her.

With Ed Fallone on the Supreme Court, we might not win every case that we wish, but that's OK, because at least we'd know we were given a fair shake. With Roggensack, we know that there would be no chance at justice, since her decisions have already been bought and paid for.

If people do indeed think that the Supreme Court is too political, now would be the time to change it.

And to change the political nature of the Court means to change the political Justices, like Roggensack.

Vote Ed Fallone.

Importance Of Supreme Court Race Grows By A F-Act-or of 10

The importance of the April 2 election between Ed Fallone and Patience Roggensack for Wisconsin Supreme Court could not be emphasized enough before Thursday.  Now its importance as grown by a factor of 10 - Act 10 to be specific.

The reason for that jump in importance came in the form of a ruling by the Appellate Court, which also refused to put a stay on Judge Colas ruling that Act 10 was unconstitutional:

A Wisconsin Court of Appeals today refused to put on hold a judge's decision repealing major parts of Gov. Scott Walker's Act 10, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen had asked the 4th District Court of Appeals to place the September ruling of Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas on hold while Van Hollen appeals the decision.

The Appeals Court today upheld that decision, leaving the status of Act 10 in limbo. The Appeals Court said it saw "no basis to set aside the circuit court's decision that a stay was not warranted."

Today’s ruling likely sets the stage for Van Hollen to take the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court has a 5-to-4 majority.

The actual ruling is here, via WisPolitics.com.

To refresh the gentle reader's memory of what Judge Colas' ruling was about, the Wisconsin State Journal has a good, succinct version:

In his original ruling, Colas said the law violates school and local employees' constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation because it caps union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts.

The decision allowed schools and local governments to bargain with their employees, and several, including those in Madison, acted quickly to take advantage of the window to reach new contacts.

Van Hollen argued in his request for a stay that not taking swift action would lead to chaos and further confusion, given that the law has been in effect for more than a year. Van Hollen also argued that there was confusion over whether the lower court's ruling was effective statewide.

Now that the court case is on its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the election on April 2nd should be on top of everyone's mind.

I don't know whether Justice Ed Fallone would vote to uphold Judge Colas' ruling or not.  But I do know that if he were to rule to overturn the lower court's finding, it would be based on the law and the Constitution.

I also know that Justice Roggensack would rule to overturn the lower court, regardless of the law and the Constitution.

How do I know that?  Simple. By her track record.

She has shown that she is in cahoots with the likes of David "Chokehold" Prosser by recusing herself from his ethics case long before the case was even brought before her, since it hasn't even been presented to this date.  Even worse, the law shows that she shouldn't be recusing herself in the first place.

And we know that not only is she being sponsored by out of state special interests, like the education profiteers and the Koch Brothers, but she is trying to hide the fact from the public.

Experience tells us that these big money donors are not giving her all this lucre because they think she's a fair judge.  They're doing it because they know that her vote can be bought.  We also know that Roggensack's sponsors are vehemently against workers and will do anything to keep Act 10 alive.

These big money donors are the same ones that brought us the likes of Prosser; Michael Gableman, who is also under investigation still; Annette Ziegler, who was reprimanded for her poor ethics; and Scott Walker, the only sitting governor to have a legal defense fund and who had to buy his way out of being charged (for now).

It is time and beyond time that we restore dignity and ethics to the Supreme Court and restore law to this state.  It is time that we elect Ed Fallone to be our next Supreme Court Justice.

Fallone Would Take Campaign Money Out Of Supreme Court Decisions

Ed Fallone, candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, said that he would reverse a decision that allows Supreme Court Justices to sit on cases involving parties that donated to their campaigns:

State Supreme Court candidate Ed Fallone said Thursday if elected he would reverse a court rule that says justices do not have to step aside in cases involving parties who gave them political donations.

The court passed the rule on a 4-3 vote in 2009, with Justice Patience Roggensack in the majority. Fallone is running against Roggensack in the April 2 election, so it appears if he were elected he would have the votes to overturn the rule.

He said changing the rule improve the reputation of the court because citizens would be less likely to think justices are beholden to special interests.

“Even if a justice is pure as the driven snow and not influenced by (donations), the public perceives it as a problem,” said Fallone, a Marquette University law professor.

Unsurprisingly, his opponent, Patience Roggensack and her campaign manager, Brandon Scholz, poo-pooed such a notion (emphasis mine):

Roggensack campaign adviser Brandon Scholz issued a statement dismissing Fallone's proposal as a political attack.

"It would appear that Professor Fallone’s campaign attack falls flat in that he failed to demonstrate how contributions and endorsements have impacted decisions made and rendered by the Supreme Court," Scholz's statement said.

The state's longstanding ethical code for judges says they must recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned. In 2009, the court amended the code with a provision written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and business lobbying group Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce that said campaign spending and endorsements alone aren't enough to require them to step aside in cases.

At the time the new rule was adopted, Roggensack said it would clarify court policies at a time when justices were being bombarded by accusations of bias.

"It will send a message that making lawful contributions is not a dishonorable thing to do and it's not a dishonorable thing to receive," Roggensack said then.

There's a couple of things to note here.

One is that the Realtors Association and WMC both gave Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler a lot of money, directly and indirectly, to allow her to buy her seat. They did not do so because they thought she would rule accordingly with what the law reads.

The other thing is that this change was made just after Ziegler was reprimanded by the Supreme Court she sits on due to her willing failure to even notify the parties in at least eleven cases she presided over as a circuit court judge and which involved her husband's bank.  The year before that, Ziegler had to pay $5,000 and legal costs to the State Ethics Board for her failure to follow the law.

It was the first time that a sitting justice was reprimanded by the Supreme Court.

So it comes at no surprise that Roggensack, who unsuccessfully tried to conceal the fact that she received $20,000 from out of state special interests wanting to privatize the education system and who has received a lot of direct and indirect support from the Koch-funded Club for Growth, would be opposed to taking special interest campaign donations out of court decisions.

This is just another example in a long line of incidents that show that Roggensack has no integrity, no ethics and no sense of devotion to the people or the law of this state.

It is also more proof that we need Ed Fallone on the bench so that we can start restoring dignity to at least one branch of state government.

Roggensack Lies About Endorsement. Again.

Patience Roggensack has a real problem when it comes to honesty and integrity.

At the end of the year, she got caught playing games with $20,000 in campaign donations from out of state school profiteers.  She tried to manipulate the reporting of such money to keep it concealed from the public.

She's been known for a long time as an willing associate of law breakers and violent thugs.  She's even gone so far as to violate the rule of law herself in an effort to aid one of her scofflaw friends, David Prosser, escape responsibility for his attack on a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court.

Now yet another integrity issue has arisen in her campaign. She falsely listed the name of a judge as one of the people endorsing her, despite the obvious fact that he was in no way about to: RobertoE. Kinney, a reserve judge who spent more than 30 years as an Oneida County Circuit Court judge, said Roggensack asked him to endorse her in November but hge declined. He discovered he had been listed as a backer on her website on Thursday and sent her an email asking for his name to be taken down.

“Near the end of our conversation I told you that I disagreed with your position in virtually every 4-3 decision rendered by our Court, and, for that reason, the best you could hope for from me was that I wouldn't endorse anyone. Surely you must remember that,” Kinney wrote in his email.

“I don't know how this mistake was made, and I certainly hope that it does not call into question the accuracy of the rest of your list,” he added, saying he thought candidates in statewide races usually had endorsers sign statements of support to avoid mistakes.

And this is not the first time that she has done this.

Roggensack has shown time and time again that she has no integrity, no sense of ethics or appropriateness.

The right wingers don't care about such things, especially if it means that they or their friends get even bigger pieces of the pie.

But for me, I would expect a judge, regardless of the bench they sit on, to have a modicum of honesty. I would expect an even higher level of integrity from a Supreme Court Justice.

That is why I am planning on voting for Ed Fallone on April 2, and I would ask that you, gentle voter, do the same.

It will be a long, long haul to bring our state out of the shambles the current regime has made of it, but every job starts with the first step. Make that step putting Ed Fallone on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

How The FCC Could Counter Citizens United

It is well known that since the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in Citizens United, the corporations have been pouring money into almost every election in order to buy control of every corner of our country.

That is ever so apparent in the way Scott Walker and the Republicans are kowtowing to the likes of the Koch Brothers, the Bradley Foundation and anyone else with enough cash to buy their votes.

But this could all be stopped within 90 short days.

All it would take is for the Federal Communications Commission to develop a spine.

I say this based on this article written by Michael J. Copps, a former FCC Commissioner.  In said article, Copps points out how easy it would be for the FCC to expose this corruption, if they just had the gumption to do their jobs by enforcing a law that they've allowed to lay dormant for more than 20 years:

Fortunately, one major reform can be implemented immediately, without legislative action or a court order. All we need is for an independent agency, the Federal Communications Commission, to enforce a campaign finance disclosure requirement that is already on the books.

Section 317 of the Communications Act (47 USC § 317) requires on-air identification of the sponsors of all advertisements, political as well as commercial. Explaining the rules it wrote to implement the statute, the FCC stipulated years ago that political ads must “fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person or persons, or corporation, committee, association or other unincorporated group, or other entity” paying for them. “Listeners are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded,” the commission said.

“True identity” means just what it says. If a special interest group calling itself Citizens for Purple Mountain Majesties and Amber Waves of Grain is a front for a chemical company refusing to clean up a toxic dump or an energy company looking to buy friendships on Capitol Hill, the law says we as citizens need to know that.

As Copps correctly states, the special interests would scream bloody murder about anyone trying to do this.

But Copps also points out that the Citizens United ruling also supports the FCC's right and obligation to enforce this law:

More potentially good news: campaign finance reform may have an unlikely ally. Hidden away in the Supreme Court’s otherwise outrageous Citizens United decision, the source of so much damage to our political system, is this sentence, in effect backed by eight of the nine justices: “Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.” If the High Court itself is talking disclosure, isn’t it time to get on with the job?

Wouldn't that be something to see?!

I would love to see it in effect now.

I don't imagine that Patience Roggensack would have even survived the primary if all the ads running on her behalf had to have the disclosure that they were being paid for by groups like the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce or some other right wing group looking to keep the majority of the state supreme court under their thumb.

And don't think for a minute she doesn't know this as well. Why else would she have tried to conceal the $20,000 she got from all of the out of state school profiteers?

$20,000? What $20,000? Oh, That $20,000!

We already know that Justice Patience Roggensack likes to associate with ne'er-do-wells like David Prosser, Michael Gableman and Annette Ziegler.

We also know that she likes to turn a blind eye when one of her thug buddies gets into trouble, even though it's her duty as a Supreme Court Justice not to.

We learned at the end of last week that Roggensack has already been bought and paid for when the campaign financial reports came out:

In her campaign, Roggensack has highlighted the importance of a nonpartisan Supreme Court, but her report showed she took in more than $9,000 from political committees affiliated with the Republican Party. That accounts for more than a quarter of the $34,460 she raised in the second half of 2012.

That's not surprising, but it's not good either.  It's also not accurate.

The truth is she's trying to sell her seat, and her willingness to keep turning a blind eye, to the highest bidders, er, campaign donors.  Right now, that would be the people that want to profiteer off of our kids:

A report by the Fund for Parent Choice filed Thursday shows voucher supporters gave Roggensack $20,550 on Dec. 27. Among those contributing were members of the DeVos and Walton families that have been prominent in the voucher movement nationally.

The donations come at a time when Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans who control the Legislature are considering expanding school voucher programs.

The donations did not show up on the report Roggensack filed Thursday. Campaign consultant Brandon Scholz said the campaign did not receive the donations until Jan. 2 -- after the latest reporting period ended -- because offices were closed some of the days over the holidays.

He said the donations would show up on Roggensack's next report, to be filed Feb. 11.

Well, that sure seems like a rational explanation. I'm sure anyone that doesn't follow politics might even buy it.

But with the end of the year being the end of the reporting cycle, most campaigns were making a big push to get those last minute campaign donations to make it look like their candidate was ever so popular.  (Although I'm not even sure that story line holds true anymore since everyone knows that the special interests are pouring money into the races now.)

Scholz would have been better off just saying that Roggensack had stuck that wad of cash in her other robe and forgot about it over the holidays.

The more we are learning of Roggensack, the less patience I have for her and her corruption.

Chris Abele's Plutocracy And The Supreme Court Race

I had just written about a particularly nasty piece of legislation being worked on by newly elected State Representative Joe Sanfelippo (R-Teabagistan) to cut the salaries of Milwaukee County Supervisors and to slash their operation budget.

The issue has nothing to do with money however.  It's all about handcuffing the Milwaukee County Board so that Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele can proceed with his agenda of dismantling Milwaukee County government.

But not only is this bill going to be bad for Milwaukee County, it could prove to be devastating for the rest of the state due to its impact on the Supreme Court race.

Spring elections are historically notorious for going in the favor of conservatives and Republicans to begin with.

However, there is cause for a certain amount of optimism in the upcoming race.

Two years ago, Joanne Kloppenburg came within a few thousand votes of beating David Prosser.  And that is when she was so far behind just two months before that no one gave her a fighting chance.  She took Milwaukee County 57-43.

Likewise, in the last two gubernatorial races, Tom Barrett, despite his particularly awful campaigns, still took Milwaukee County in a 2:1 margin.

The same could be said for the elections this past November, when Tammy Baldwin and Barack Obama had strong margins of victory in Milwaukee County.

But with the introduction of this bill, and you can count on the Republicans ramming it through, changes things in Milwaukee.  It will bring out the conservatives and the teahadists in droves.  How often do they get to vote to cut the pay of some politicians, even if they end up hurting themselves in the process? And it's not like the Republicans don't already have a history of voting against their best interests and taking us down with them.

And even though Abele is purportedly a Democrat, he would be more than pleased to see the Wisconsin Supreme Court remain in the control of the corporate-owned conservative bloc of justices.  With all of the illegal stunts he's pulled, and all the lawsuits the county keeps losing, he's counting on a supreme court that is more interested in the corporate interests than in the law or the rights of people.

So if Ed Fallone loses to Pat Roggensack in April, take a look at the voting totals in Milwaukee County.  My guess is that they would be very skewed from the past several elections.

And if Fallone would lose to Roggensack, you can thank Chris Abele for making it happen.

Helluva thing, sacrificing a whole state because of a temper tantrum by a spoiled rich brat.

Early Endorsement: Fallone For Supreme Court

I knew about this for a few days and couldn't be happier:

Ed Fallone, an expert on constitutional and corporate law and a widely respected attorney, has announced he will run for Wisconsin Supreme Court.

“Attorneys, judges, elected leaders and citizens from around the State have urged me to run because they, like me, believe we need a change in the Supreme Court,” Fallone said. “The increased politicization of the court and the court's dysfunction exemplified by its inability to credibly handle allegations of inappropriate behavior by Justice Prosser are clearly damaging the court’s ability to deliver justice and serve the people of this state.”

Fallone has a broad base of legal experience. He has taught at Marquette University Law School for two decades, focusing on constitutional law, immigration law, securities regulation and corporate law. He also practices law with Gonzalez, Saggio & Harlan specializing in complex civil litigation including corporate law and contractual issues.

“The Wisconsin Supreme Court is dysfunctional and the only way to fix it is to change the personalities on the bench,” said Fallone. “I am not beholden to any political party or faction on the court or any special interest group. The people of Wisconsin expect -- and deserve -- judges who respect the importance of an independent judiciary and who are impartial and fair. That is the kind of Justice I will be.”

“The re-election of Justice Roggensack who is now a part of this dysfunctional court, will not help matters. The Wisconsin Supreme Court cannot police the legal profession if it refuses to police itself. When serious disciplinary charges are brought against a fellow Justice, the people deserve a Justice who will face the issue head on, not run away from it,” Fallone added.

Fallone would be the first Latino Justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. His mother immigrated to the United States from Mexico and Fallone grew up in a family equally proud of both its Italian and Mexican heritages. Fallone is married, with two children and lives in Whitefish Bay.

Fallone is active in the greater Milwaukee community. He has worked extensively with several nonprofit organizations serving at risk populations including Centro Legal Inc., The Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Assistance Program and The Latino Community Center. He has also been active in promoting education and support for stem cell research in the state as the President of Wisconsin Stem Cell Now. Fallone was recognized with the President’s Award from Community Shares of Greater Milwaukee in 2010.

Fallone will begin circulating nomination papers which are due to the Government Accountability Board in early January. The non-partisan election for the Supreme Court is in April 2013.

I first met Professor Fallone early in the year when I appeared in a panel to discuss the worth of recalls. I was impressed with Fallone's knowledge during the debate and even more impressed with him after the debate, when we joined our host in his home for some post-debate cocktails.

Fallone's knowledge is formidable. He is also an engaging speaker but is, well, judicial in the words he uses. He does not use inflammatory rhetoric and is truly only interested in what the law says and not the political aspect of things. This is evident in the way he reacted to questions the local paper put to him about his primary opponent, Vince Megna:

In an interview, Fallone agreed with Megna that Supreme Court races have taken on partisan overtones in recent years, but he eschewed Megna's political rhetoric.

"I think the elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court have become increasingly partisan, but I don't believe making them more partisan is helpful," Fallone said.

Another asset of Fallone's is that he knows exactly what he is going up against. He knows all about how the corporate backers who support Roggensack operate. And he's not afraid to call them out on their falsehoods.

When I handicapped the race a few weeks ago, I pointed out that the Honorable Maryann Sumi was considering a run. I thought that she would also make a fine Supreme Court Justice. I still do. Apparently so does Roggensack, since she support Sumi's decisions 12 out of 13 times.

But if she does chose to run, she will have the corporate special interests going after her for her Act 10 ruling, even though she was absolutely correct in her ruling. This will distract from her true qualifications.

Fallone won't have those problems, and is just as qualified as Sumi, if not more so.

It is because Fallone is highly qualified, extremely knowledgeable of both the Constitution and the law, and does not have any real or perceived ties to either party, nor the unions or corporate special interests which makes him the obvious choice to be on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

And that is why I am going to support him any way I can, including giving him my vote.

And We're Off To The Races....Again

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Internet and be done with politics for a while, it raises its ugly head again.

Talk is already starting about the upcoming Supreme Court race, where Justice Patience Roggensack is up for reelection.

Roggensack is the least offensive of the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court. But that is only because she is the only one that hasn't been charged with ethics violations.

The crew she hangs with includes:

• Annette Ziegler, who presided over cases which included the bank at which her husband worked without disclosing it. This was found to be a matter of "serious and willful" misconduct.
• Michael Gableman, who broke judicial ethics laws by running a race-baiting campaign commercial he knew to be false.
• David Prosser, who physically assaulted another Supreme Court Justice, trying to choke her (then establishing an illegal legal defense fund). He also ruled to overturn the injunction against Act 10 without even bothering to consider the facts of the case and in apparent collaboration with the Republican leadership of the legislature.

Although Roggensack is the only conservative justice that is not or has not been under investigation, she is not without blemish.

She did unquestioningly go along with the incorrect and politically biased decision to reinstate Act 10, regardless of the facts. And after Prosser put a choke hold on their fellow justice, Roggensack twisted the law so that she could recuse herself and not hold Prosser accountable for his actions.

Needless to say, Roggensack is a mere puppet and rubber stamp for all that is wrong with the state and has willfully failed to meet her responsibilities as a justice on the highest court in the state.

So far, three people have either stated that they are running or are seriously considering it.

The one person to say that he is committed to running is Vince Menga, commonly known as the King of Lemon Laws, due to his proficiency in suing auto dealers who push faulty vehicles. Menga is also known for a series of videos, like this one, that he's made attacking Republicans and their foolish policies.

While Menga is undoubtedly familiar with the law, there is no way he could present himself as a impartial jurist. He's even refused to take on Republican clients, for crying out loud.

While I'm sure he's a nice guy, I just cannot take him seriously as a candidate to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Maryann Sumi

One of the people considering running is none other than Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi. Judge Sumi is most well known for her proper decision to put an injunction against Act 10, which was passed in violation of the open meeting laws.

The Republicans/WMC/RWNJs will attack her for her decision. In fact, two right wing puppets have already done so. Owen Robinson slams her for not being neutral, while trying hard to ignore the acts of Roggensack, Gableman, Prosser and Ziegler and their WMC backing. Even more comical is the way that Jim Troupis - famous for his roles in Michael Best & Friedrich, the gerrymandering scandal and the voter suppression scheme - plays into the rubbish.

They will have a hard time slandering her though, given the fact that Roggensack herself has upheld decisions by Sumi 12 out of 13 times. And the one that Roggensack overturned was due to a clerical error, not an incorrect decision.

Out of the three potential candidates, the one with the most name recognition would have to be Judge Sumi. Her biggest problem would be if she could overcome the vast amount of corporate cash that will be poured into the race in an effort to buy it for Roggensack like they did for Ziegler, Gableman and Prosser.

The third person who is interested in a possible run is Professor Ed Fallone of Marquette University.

Professor Ed Fallone

I have had the pleasure of meeting Professor Fallone during a debate on the recalls last spring. I found Professor Fallone to be very erudite and able to work equally well with both liberals and conservatives.

But one should not let Professor Fallone's equanimity fool you. He is a constitutional scholar and does not let foolishness stand unaddressed, especially when the fool purposely tries to misrepresent the law and the Constitution.

You can also get a sampling of Professor Fallone's keen understanding of the law in his opinion about the more recent ruling which found Act 10 to be unconstitutional.

While Professor Fallone is unquestionably qualified for the job and is a great speaker and very personable, he would also have to overcome the juggernaut spending from groups like WMC.

I am not sure that he enjoys the same name recognition that Judge Sumi has, but that might not be a real problem. In the last Supreme Court race, JoAnne Kloppenburg came out of nowhere and almost won the race in just a couple of months.

I do have to admit finding it somewhat disconcerting that Professor Fallone expressed a reluctance to run if there was a primary. I certainly hope that this would not keep the public from the opportunity of voting for an extremely qualified candidate.

The one thing that each of the potential candidates, as well as the rest of us, needs to keep in mind is that the right will try to portray this race as some sort of referendum of Act 10. They will spout out their specious arguments that anyone opposing Roggensack is trying to thwart the will of the people or they are trying to somehow undo Walker's last two elections. Or that we are all a bunch of Muslim, Communist, Socialist, Pagan, [insert bigoted slur here], [insert misspelled vulgarity here]s.

This is, as the gentle reader knows, a load of poppycock.

First of all, Scott Walker testified, under oath, that he did NOT campaign on the union-busting measure. Nor was their any referendum regarding Act 10. So any claims that this was the will of the people is nothing but bovine manure.

This race is about who will best uphold the Constitution and act in good faith and with impartiality on how the law applies to any given case. And that is something that Roggensack has repeatedly demonstrated that she is either unable and/or unwilling to do.

And since someone will ask anyway, I would prefer to see Professor Fallone on the Supreme Court. That said, I would also have no problems with supporting Judge Sumi if she ends up being the candidate.

David Prosser - Rule of Necessity!

David Prosser was recently in the news when his documents were released, showing him to be a complete immoral unethical ass. His latest escapade was to ask all of his colleagues to recuse themselves from reviewing his horrible judicial conduct. 

If Prosser can get two others to recuse themselves, Patience Roggensack already has(and Prosser will also) then the review of his conduct that is so desperately needed, will never happen.  While Prosser is unethical he is not dumb.  He knows that his conduct will not stand up to review so he works to make sure he is never held accountable. 

Luckily for the people of Wisconsin and our Justice system, Justice Crooks will NOT recuse himself and is ready to hear the case.  

I have given careful consideration to Justice David T. Prosser's motion for my recusal from participation in the judicial disciplinary proceedings against him, Case No. 2012AP566-J. Initially, I concluded that this recusal motion was premature because the judicial discipline statutes, Wis. Stat. § 757.81 through § 757.99 (2009-10), do not require this court to act at this stage in the proceedings. Nevertheless, I have decided that I now want to issue my decision on Justice Prosser's recusal motion.

I conclude that the legal rule known as the "Rule of Necessity," as well as the duty to sit on cases, requires me to remain on this case. After considering all of the arguments raised by Justice Prosser's recusal motion, I further conclude that Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(b) and (g), and SCR 60.04(4) do not require me to recuse in this matter.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed the complaint against Justice Prosser in this court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.85(5) and did not request a jury. At this point, the statutes direct the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel. Wis. Stat. § 757.87(1), (3) (providing that "[t]he chief judge of the court of appeals shall select the judges and designate which shall be presiding judge"). Despite the statute's requirement, no panel has been selected. The Judicial Commission has now filed a motion titled "motion for designation to panel." (Capitalization omitted.) It asks this court to initiate the selection of a three-judge panel and to designate this matter to such a panel to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation regarding the appropriate discipline in response to the complaint.

The complaint against Justice Prosser appears to allege ethical violations based on two incidents: (1) that Justice Prosser put his hands around the neck of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley on June 13, 2011, in Justice Bradley's chambers, and (2) a prior incident in which Justice Prosser said to Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson after a closed conference, "You are a total bitch." I was not present during the first incident. I was present during the second. The complaint is against a member of the court, and both incidents directly involved other members of the court. Justice Prosser has requested by letter that Justice Roggensack, Justice Ziegler and Justice Gableman recuse themselves and has filed motions for recusal against Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley. Justice Roggensack has decided to recuse herself in this matter. If I were to grant Justice Prosser's motion for recusal, it is possible that this court would lack a quorum to act on the judicial disciplinary proceedings against Justice Prosser. Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4(1) ("Any 4 justices shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of the court's business.").⁽¹⁾  

Justice Crooks is ready to roll in terms of hearing SWORN testimony in the Prosser case, under the "Rule of Necessity".  I can not think of anything more necessary than hearing this case and doling out the appropriate punishment to allow the people of Wisconsin to have faith in their government again

Our friend Illy T has much more here!