Friday, January 20, 2012

Justice Gableman above Ethics, above Law! We’ve let Republicans Trash the judicial system, and we’re paying for it!

Conservatives think they can do no wrong, heck, we’re seeing that with the no apologies governor. Tough decisions may not be popular, but they’re doing it for our own good. They’re our leaders, our authority figures. And so it is with Justice Michael Gableman, a guy’s who’s had a dark cloud over his head since his election.

On a Friday afternoon, when scoundrels release information to the media to bury it, Gableman slinked out to give us his judicial opinion. And no one can do anything about it.
jsonline: State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman said Friday he would not step aside in three matters, including an attempt to reopen last year's decision that allowed a new law to take effect that curbed the power of public unions. The other cases Gableman was asked to step aside from were pending matters. One involves the siting of a large heifer facility in Rock County; the other is over whether to use old or new legislative maps for likely recall elections of state senators.

Attorneys in the cases asked Gableman to remove himself because other parties in the cases were represented by Michael Best & Friedrich, which defended Gableman against an ethics allegation without billing him. Lawyers have said the legal work was likely worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Now, the full court will have to decide whether to force Gableman from the cases.

Never before have we seen such arrogance in power, from all three branches of our Republican government. Here’s Mr. Perfects reasons for no longer recusing himself:
Gableman's written orders saying he was remaining on the case were released together and virtually identical. He cited state Supreme Court decisions from 2008 and 2011 that say justices can recuse themselves only when they cannot act fairly and impartially or where they give the appearance that they cannot do so. He also cited U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' recent report that said justices on the nation's highest court should not withdraw from cases because of "partisan demands, public clamor or considerations of personal popularity or notoriety."

In his orders, Gableman did not go into the merits of the allegations against him or explain why he did not believe there was an appearance of a conflict of interest.

1 comment:

  1. Gableman not only appears to have a conflict of interst, and appears to be a partisan hack, he also appears to be arrogant and not very bright. The question may be whether he even know what the word "recuse" means.