Conservative Justices claim that separate "Words" are objectively true, but Combined words and their message may be misleading and irrelevant .

The title says it all. Despite being illegal, "judges cannot knowingly misrepresent the background of their opponents and should be disciplined," conservative justices showed their conservative stripes by dismissing a misleading, race baiting ad. After all, the separate words, by themselves, don't convey any particular message. I'm not exaggerating:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court deadlocked on whether one of its members committed misconduct, issuing unprecedented dueling opinions that order contradictory outcomes … the court split 3-3 on whether Justice Michael Gableman violated the judicial code of conduct when he ran a potentially misleading and race-baiting campaign ad in 2008.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and two others seen as the court's liberal bloc said Gableman knowingly made a false statement suggesting his opponent helped free a sex offender who went on to rape again. They said a judicial panel wrongly recommended dismissing the case, and directed the Wisconsin Judicial Commission to seek a jury trial.

I just love the explanation by the conservative justices, who parsed that the "words" themselves were true, regardless of their combined meaning or message. Holy crap:

Gableman had argued the words of the ad were technically true, if misleading. Three justices seen as Gableman's conservative colleagues said the ad was distasteful, but the words themselves were "objectively true." They ruled Gableman's speech was protected by the First Amendment and directed the commission to dismiss its complaint.

Another example of conservative activist Justice assholes doing whatever it takes to win. Hey, I'm protected by my free speech rights, the fact that the words are true, even though the message is "distasteful."