Saturday, October 31, 2009

Nations Most Corrupt State Supreme Court Takes Big Money and their Cases. Wisconsin's conservative Activist Justices Shamelessly Okay Bribes

As the title suggests, with no hyperbole, the four conservative activist justices incredibly adopted changes to their code of conduct by suggestions made by two of the largest business groups, word for word. Funny how that works.
The additions to the judicial code of conduct were proposed by two powerful Wisconsin business groups, the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and adopted without a single change.
Abandoning the appearance of impropriety and influence, according to The Post Crescent:
The state Supreme Court adopted rules allowing judges to hear cases involving their biggest campaign contributors, siding with business interests and rejecting calls for reform.
One thing to keep in mind; conservative orthodoxy is always pure and always morally right. Those who dissent are activist legislators working from the bench. Got it? But why don't we let the four justices prove my point.
Voting 4-3, the court approved rules saying donations by groups and individuals to judges and independent spending to help them get elected do not by themselves require judges to step aside from cases. Justices Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler said the rules would prevent litigants from trying to force judges off cases simply because they received legal donations. Justice David Prosser said it would protect justices from attacks by those who unfairly suggest campaign money influences decisions.
So the whole idea of money influencing a judge or legislator is a straw man created by liberal influences to make bribery look bad. Amazing!
Their decision could have national importance because Wisconsin is one of the first states to reconsider rules for judicial recusal following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June. In that case, the court ruled that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias. Wisconsin's code ... say(s) only that judges should withdraw from cases when a reasonable observer would question their fairness.

The court rejected stepping aside if they received donations above a certain threshold, such as $1,000 or $10,000. Those rules were proposed by retired Justice William Bablitch and the League of Women Voters, who said reform was necessary to improve public confidence in the court's integrity as spending on judicial campaigns skyrockets. Bablitch had warned the court not to adopt the business-backed rules. "That's the worst thing you could do."
Mission accomplished. With anti-government citizens demanding change, and with the publics confidence in the courts tanking, a corporate free for all in this country is upon us. It is anticipated the Federal Supreme Court will rule corporate spending and influence cannot be capped during an election, and that these "on paper" corporations are constitutionally protected persons.

The authoritarian nature of Justice Prosser, a former legislator, shined brightly through when he blamed "outsiders," like the public, for thinking there might be an appearance of bias:
"I've gone through the experience of members of the court being subjected to attacks without any justification," Prosser said. "I'm sorry, I've had it. It is time to address a true crisis that has been created, not by people on the court but people outside the court."
Public radio's WHA's morning show presented the audio clip below featuring Prosser misrepresenting an editorial comment from written by Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Prosser's one sick, openly partisan corrupt activist justice, isn't he.

No comments:

Post a Comment