The ethics case of state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman comes down to what constitutes a lie. Gableman is accused of lying about his opponent, then-Justice Louis Butler Jr., in a March 2008 TV ad ... Gableman contends his ad was truthful and that under the First Amendment he can't be held liable for incorrect inferences viewers might have taken from the ad.The Ad says: "Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child."
This is the thinking of our state supreme court justice. A snake oil salesman of the first order. To claim innocence, after designing an ad that purposely conveyed a specific implied message because that's what advertisers are hired to do, proves Gableman is thumbing his nose at the legal system while endorsing the best defence con men have to offer.
What it didn't say was that while Butler prevailed before the appeals court, the Supreme Court ruled that Mitchell had to remain behind bars. He committed the subsequent crime only after he was released on parole.
The state Judicial Commission filed a complaint ... saying Gableman violated a provision of the state's judicial ethics code that bars judges from lying about political opponents. But Gableman argues the ad was true because it did not explicitly say that Butler's actions caused Mitchell's release. He can't control how viewers might interpret his ads, his lawyers have argued.