Recusal an Issue in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race
Ed Fallone, who is challenging incumbent Patience Roggensack in Wisconsin Supreme Court election, say justice should have recused herself from a case involving attorney who also represented her.
Ed Fallone is challenging incumbent Patience Roggensack in Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
Photos (3)
Photos
In 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated a criminal conviction against Dimitri Henley. Afterward, his lawyers filed a motion arguing that Justice Patience Roggensack should have recused herself from taking part, given her role in a case involving Henley’s co-defendant.
This motion was later denied, on a 4-3 vote. What surprised and even shocked some court observers was that Roggensack took part in this ruling.
“Justice Roggensack’s participation in judging her own conduct showed astounding disregard for legal ethics and every litigant’s right to impartial justice,” thundered the New York Times.
But it was in keeping with what Roggensack, now seeking a second 10-year term, has helped make the standard — that individual justices have sole authority to decide whether they should recuse.
Consider the case of Polsky v. Virnich, which the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reported on last year.
Michael Polsky was the receiver representing the creditors of a stereo components company that went bankrupt. He alleged that its owners, Daniel Virnich and Jack Moores, had plundered the company through excessive payments to themselves.
In 2006, a jury agreed, ordering the pair to pay a $6.5 million judgment, the largest in Wisconsin that year. The case came before the state Supreme Court — twice. The first time, Roggensack did not participate, without explanation, as court rules allow. The second time, in 2011, she cast a critical vote to upend this judgment.
The attorney for the victorious defendants was Donald Schott, who also represented Roggensack in a 2008 proceeding before the state Government Accountability Board.
Both Schott and Roggensack have refused to say whether his services were provided for free or at a reduced rate. The question arose because another justice, Michael Gableman, received free legal services from an attorney whose firm had cases before the court. A recent request for comment made through Roggensack’s campaign adviser, Brandon Scholz, yielded no response.
Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone, Roggensack’s challenger in the April 2 election, is seeking to make recusal an issue in this campaign. He says Roggensack “bears a large part of the responsibility for pushing through” a 2010 change in court rules stating that mere receipt of campaign contributions or endorsements can never in itself require recusal.
In a news release, the Fallone campaign has dubbed this the “Roggensack rule,” saying it “allows interest groups with cases before the court to make campaign contributions to justices.”
Roggensack has defended this change, telling a legislative committee that “money spent to communicate during an election has long been held to be an element of speech, and therefore such expenditures are protected by the First Amendment.”
Fallone, who signed the recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker, does not think general opinions should be grounds for disqualification, because judges are expected to put these aside. He would disagree, for instance, with calls for Gableman to sit out criminal cases because of statements he made as a candidate suggesting antipathy toward criminal defendants.
But Fallone says campaign contributions from parties or lawyers may require recusal: “We should always be concerned that the courts are not perceived as being for sale.”
State Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, last year introduced bills to make parties to a case disclose judicial contributions, require judges or justices to explain in writing if they refuse a request to step aside, and create a new standard requiring recusal whenever “a reasonable person would question whether the judge could act in an impartial manner.”
The bills went nowhere, but Hebl plans to reintroduce them in the current legislative session.
Fallone supports all of these changes. But he may not got the chance. Roggensack bested him by a 2-1 margin in the primary and has a sizable lead in reported campaign cash. According to the news source WisPolitics.com, insiders are wondering whether Fallone will muster enough support to run a credible number of TV ads.
Bob McBride
8:58 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Grasping at straws.
Mr Lundt
9:10 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
"Fallone, who signed the recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker, does not think general opinions should be grounds for disqualification, because judges are expected to put these aside."
Classic lefty double speak.
So a conservative judge does not have the ability to eliminate her bias---percieved or real--- when making a judgement.
BUT a Lefty does.
Got it.
John Casper
10:47 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Doesn't matter which "side," you believe, Prosser/Bradley, somebody did something. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." If Justice Roggensack's not interested in accountability, she's got no place in traffic court.
Keith Best
10:01 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
This is all a smokescreen to cover up the fact that Ed Fallone has NONE (0) judicial experience while Justice Roggensack has 7 years on the Appellate Court and 10 years on the WI. Supreme Court, and deserves re-election.
John Casper
10:42 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Keith, how many years of judicial experience did David Prosser have before he was elected to the state Supreme Ct?
Greg
10:54 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
3 years.
CowDung
10:02 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
"Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone, Roggensack’s challenger in the April 2 election, is seeking to make recusal an issue in this campaign. He says Roggensack “bears a large part of the responsibility for pushing through” a 2010 change in court rules stating that mere receipt of campaign contributions or endorsements can never in itself require recusal.
In a news release, the Fallone campaign has dubbed this the “Roggensack rule,” saying it “allows interest groups with cases before the court to make campaign contributions to justices.”"
If Fallone gets elected, will he recuse himself from making any rulings on Act 10 or any other union related matters because of the unions that endorsed and/or donated to his campaign?
John Casper
10:50 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Cow, do you want him to recuse when the issue is whether Act 10 should apply to public safety unions?
CowDung
8:14 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
I don't think that a recusal is necessarily in order should he be in that position, but if he's going to make recusal an issue to use against Roggensack, he'd be a hypocrite if he didn't recuse himself in that situation.
Bottom Line
11:09 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
http://www.wisciviljusticecouncil.org/judicial-evaluation/2013-judicial-evaluation/
John Casper
10:52 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Bottom, it's a free country. It's your constitutional right to oppose the free markets.
Steve ®
11:38 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Blue fisters are a cancer on this state.
Mr Lundt
12:07 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
1/17/2013 - Madison Teachers Inc. - $8,625.00
1/26/2013 - WI PEOPLE Conf. (AFSCME) - $8,500.00
2/16/2013 - WI Nurses and Health Prof. - $5,000.00
2/09/2013 - Kettle Moraine Uniserv. - $1,000.00
2/09/2013 - SEIU State Council PAC - $3,000.00
2/13/2013 - AFT WI COPE - $8,625.00
2/15/2013 - AFT Local 212 - $8,625.00
TOTAL LABOR CONTRIBUTIONS - $43,375.00
Good to know that Fallone won't hear a union case...as if he was going to win the election.
Brian Dey
12:30 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Ed Fallone- Putz!
Robert Merlin
12:32 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
All these comments,but nothing about an attorney that represented her,and she cast the deciding vote for her friend. And Steve calls the blue fisters a cancer...IMHO..the repubs got a lock on that...
CowDung
12:54 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What kind of comments do you want? No ethics complaints have been lodged against Roggensack for failing to recuse herself. The only one that seems to have a problem with it is the guy running against her, who has been backed by the unions so he can do exactly the same thing that he's accusing Roggensack of doing...
Steve Ebbie
1:15 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
It just doesn't matter anymore.
You could surround yourself with theives and felons but party line trumps anything.
I don't know either of these people, but I do see a conflict of interest when a judge votes in favor of an attorney who happens to represent them.
IMHO
Bren
4:36 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Good judgment refers to decisions made in business/social/personal life that move one forward and earn the respect of others. We've all encountered those obtuse individuals who need extra hints that they are being strident or have had one too many. Too many hints needed over time eventually damage that individual's credibility. At a certain point in life the inner voice should be sufficiently developed that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are well defined. Electing an individual who demonstrates good judgment--period--should be our goal. We expect this of family, friends, business associates and it is not unreasonable to expect the same from an individual who is making decisions that impact people's lives. I personally have an issue with electing judges because the process opens the door to unsavoriness.
Luke
6:14 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Does this mean we haven't been giving Bren enough hints?
gg
4:50 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Patience, she looks so self-righteous. She must be perfect!
Fred Fischer
8:43 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I never know who to vote for in a judicial race. Now I do though.
Throw the bums out
6:58 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Patience the bought and sold justice. Guess I now know who I'm voting for.
John Wilson
5:54 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Throw the bums out -
Just because "Patience" has decided to be an activist judge, and change the judicial approach to cases - like Scalia - and votes 74% of the time for large corporate interests, does not mean that she is "bought and sold justice."
That is probably just a mere coincidence... like gravity…
Luke
7:02 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
@gg
What? You don't like that 25-year-old picture of Ed?
Ed Holladay
12:05 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Wait an minute... this is not about campaign donations, is it? The article said, "given her role in a case involving Henley’s co-defendant."
The issue appears to be that Roggensack was somehow involved in a related case. Is this the case? How was she involved?
morninmist
4:18 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
I watched the debate the other night. Fallon came across as articulate and calm, while Roggensack was defensive, red in the face and agitated. Ed did a good job.
morninmist
4:23 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Help ED get out the vote:
United Wisconsin @UnitedWisconsin
Help get out the vote for Ed Fallone and Tony Evers: http://www.unitedwisconsin.com/become-active/volunteer-spring-election-phonebanks-in-madison … #Madison #wiunion
morninmist
4:56 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Roggy needs to retire.
....According to One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross, "These latest incidents suggest Pat Roggensack has a disturbingly adversarial relationship with the truth for someone seeking to be a judge on the top court in the state."
In two known incidents, Roggensack listed individuals as endorsing her who have not. The most recent non-endorser is a reserve judge from Northern Wisconsin who was listed as supporting her candidacy despite explicitly indicating in a conversation with her that he would not do so based on her record on the court.
In previous recorded remarks, Roggensack claimed fellow conservative justice David Prosser apologized "right away" for a verbal tirade in which he made disparaging remarks about the court's Chief Justice. This week the subject of Prosser's verbal tirade indicated that in fact Prosser never directly apologized to her for his behavior. When questioned about this disparity, Roggensack refused to take the opportunity to clarify her remarks and instead accused a reporter of playing "gotcha" with her.
Ross concluded, "Based on her record of votes and decisions on the court we know that Pat Roggensack favors the special interests funding her campaign over the rest of us. Based on these latest bizarre incidents from her in this campaign, we may also be learning that she prefers stonewalling and political spin to the truth."
http://www.pnstate.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=100763&em_id=81121.0
CowDung
6:50 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Funny how they accuse her of 'favoring the special interests funding her campaign', while throwing their support behind Union funded Fallone because he will rule on the side of the unions...
morninmist
7:13 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
@cow.
you have nothing to back up your assertion that Ed would "rule on the side of the unions"
Both sides are advocating reforms in how SC races are funded. We can hope that whoever is elected WILL DO the reforms.
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-we-really-can-reform-court-races/article_3dfe13ce-882f-11e2-9c6f-001a4bcf887a.html
....But since there seems to be so much agreement that something should be done to address special-interest spending on court races, and since candidates as distinct as Justice Roggensack and Ed Fallone are advocating for reform, this would seem to be the right time to develop a bipartisan reform plan to get big money out of court races.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-we-really-can-reform-court-races/article_3dfe13ce-882f-11e2-9c6f-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz2N8riJgjS
CowDung
4:36 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Morninmist:
The backing that Ed would rule on the side of the unions was posted by you. You published a letter calling for volunteers where it stated that the union was supporting Fallone because he will rule in their favor. I remember making comments about how brazen they were to state that in writing...
"This Tuesday, February 19, is the 3-way primary between Ed Fallone, Vince Megna and the corporate special interest group backed candidate Patience Roggensack.
We have to remind our fellow union brothers and sisters to get out and vote this Tuesday! The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO has endorsed Ed Fallone because of his commitment to stand up for working families.
Can you help us spread the word and remind fellow supporters to get to the polls this Tuesday? "
morninmist
11:17 am on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
so Cow
Nothing wrong with saying he would stand up for working families.
"The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO has endorsed Ed Fallone because of his commitment to stand up for working families."
CowDung
11:23 am on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
It is clearly stating that he's expected to side with the unions on matters that come before him...
John Wilson
6:08 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
CowDung -
“Funny how they accuse her of 'favoring the special interests funding her campaign', while throwing their support behind Union funded Fallone because he will rule on the side of the unions”
You KNOW how Fallone will rule on cases (?); omniscience is a very dangerous position…
The Anti-Alinsky
10:36 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
John (if that is your real name), if you think Roggensack is an activist judge than you ARE completely clueless!!!
CowDung
2:04 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
No omniscience is necessary, John.
The unions have stated that they are supporting Fallone because Fallone would side with them should he be elected to the court...
John Wilson
4:24 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
CowDung -
I get it, you do not like a fair and honest judge, such as Fallone...
No one knows how a particular judge is going to rule on a particular case, regardless of his or her ideology, party affiliation, or financial supporters.
How quickly you troglodytes forget that John Roberts wrote the majority opinion on President’s Obama’s ACA… you were all out getting inebriated on your “legal” liquor, celebrating the “sure to be declared unconstitutional ACA.”
Every judge will ultimately make their own decision, based on many different factors; to state categorically that he will vote for union interests, simply because that is part of his support base is being simple-minded, short sighted and an arrogant attempt to claim omniscience… deny it all will…
CowDung
4:43 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
First off, Fallone isn't a judge. How can you claim that he's a "fair and honest judge"?
The unions certainly seem to have a good idea how Fallone would rule as a judge--they cite his stance on Act 10 specifically as one of the reasons they are supporting him.
John Wilson
5:32 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
CowDung –
Lack of reading comprehension seems to be the hallmark of the TP/GOP. The statement is rather clear, “I get it, you do not like a fair and honest judge, such as Fallone...”
Breaking it down:
1) I get it
2) You do not like a fair and honest judge
3) Such as Fallone
I’ll further unpack that for you:
1) You are a TP/GOP person who hates everything NOT TP/GOP
2) “Patience” is neither fair nor honest and is well past her sell by date, like Tommy Thompson
3) Fallone would be a fair and honest judge
You do understand that Fallone is running for a judgeship?
Again, you folks “thought” Roberts would kill President Obama’s ACA; the unions “think” Fallone will always vote for their interest; that is dangerous painting with a very broad brush.
You are the only one that KNOWS how Fallone will judge cases, which again, makes you one of those TP/GOP wishful thinking, omniscience people who, as your own TP/GOP report states is “out of touch.”
morninmist
9:07 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/article/20130308/SPJ06/303080173
Picture this: sacks and sacks of money on a conveyor belt, moving out of state. This is the Walker/Roggensack vision of Wisconsin’s future. The plan is to privatize everything potentially profitable — at taxpayers’ expense — to benefit special interests.
To this end, Pat Roggensack is a key figure in undermining public education in Wisconsin. She has been a rubber stamp for Scott Walker, and now we learn that Roggensack’s former law firm — DeWitt, Ross & Stevens — provided a “neutral” observer who approved the decision to run Skyward out of the state.
It’s no coincidence that Roggensack’s campaign is bloated with money from an out-of-state PAC for school vouchers. The Fund for Parental Choice reported giving her $20,550 on Dec. 27, but she failed to report it. Perhaps Roggensack didn’t want us to know she’s beholden to a group whose major contributors include Jim Walton (Walmart) and Dick DeVos (Amway.) These right wing extremists are not concerned with helping Catholic schools in poor neighborhoods. There is big money to be made in for-profit schools, but they need public schools to fail.
This appears to be Walker’s plan:...
Fortunately, we do have an alternative to Roggensack...(ED!!)
Keith Best
4:35 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Russ Feingold's Progressives PAC is planning on giving money to Fallone, with a lot of it coming in from out-of-state. Besides the unions, this is just another special interest that no-experience Fallone will owe.
Mr Lundt
9:18 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
I guess morninmist did not get the message that the chicken little attacks on fiscal sanity no longer work.
morninmist
9:43 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
@Mr..
Chuckle of the Day.
Wisconsin Strong @WisconsinStrong
Breaking News! Ronald Reagan just endorsed Roggensack for Wisconsin Supreme Court. #wiunion #wiright #VoteFallone
StopTheBadgerCull @janbroni
Reminder read: Roggensack touts endorsement she didn't receive.#plutocracy #voteFallone #wiunion #wipolitics http://m.jsonline.com/blogs/news/186839782.html …
morninmist
4:03 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Good news.
BUDGET: Appeals court refuses to grant stay in Act 10 case bit.ly/10Jsn8q
Keith Best
11:26 am on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Hey morninmist,
Appeals court is just another that wants the WI. Supreme Court to rule to on the ACT 10 reforms that will continue to save this state from fiscal ruin.
morninmist
11:55 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Past time for Roggy to go out to pasture--like Tommy T did.
Justice Candidate Ed Fallone schools Justice Roggensack on Laws in place to Fix Dysfunctional Court. ow.ly/iUcE7 #wiunion
Poor Justice Pat Roggensack, people just don't understand her or her efforts to bring justice to the court.
Marquette University law Professor and candidate Ed Fallone made it quite clear that it's perhaps Roggensack who really doesn't understand the legal framework of the court and its disciplinary procedure. Her vaguely worded "reprimand" hardly passes as a solution. From WPT's Here and Now:
Want to see a little conservative phony outrage? Check out this sad attempt by Roggensack to put Fallone back on his heals by accusing him of throwing dirt on the court. It's so rehearsed and out of place:
morninmist
11:58 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Phone Bank for Justice! bit.ly/XOMDlK #EdFallone #Milwaukee #Madison #wiunion #p2 #p2b #wipolitics #wigov via @wisaflcio
morninmist
12:03 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
@Cog_Dis
New blog post: Ed Fallone's First Ad dlvr.it/365rzg
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Ed Fallone's First Ad
Ed Fallone, candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, has come out with his first ad, and man, is it powerful:
Best line: "People want to see a Justice who has the courage to follow the law and stand up for the working families of Wisconsin."
That is so true.
Keith Best
8:22 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
All that dysfuntion Fallone claims in the WI. Supreme Court is a direct result of a lack of leadership. You can directly attribute that to Shirley Abrahamson.
Pat Roggensack is a voice of reason on the court, has years of experience, and deserves re-election.
Mr Lundt
9:23 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Good post morninmist.
I suspect when you talk about the "working families" you mean the Latin Kings Gangs supported by Eddy.
WaitingForTheSpark
8:28 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I was listening to WPR this morning, you should have heard all of the misguided Progressives calling in stating their reasons for voting for the radical anti-American pro-Latin Kings, union supporting, LaRaza thug Fallone. Talk about low information voters, I think they all called in to WPR this morning.
morninmist
11:21 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
bluecheddar1 @bluecheddar1
New post from the Wisconsin blog Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Republican: Vote April 2nd wp.me/p186dZ-44 #wiunion
John Wilson
11:23 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
WaitingForTheSpark -
You listed just about all of the hateful, racist, delusional, and irrational talking points of the TP/GOP cabal in your juvenile attack against Fallone. Feel better now?
Perhaps you will now turn your attention to those paradigms of 19th century living, religious zealots, KKK members, and certifiable Wacko-Birds at CPAC (i.e., Crazy People Acting Crazy) and report back with all your unbiased and poignant insights...
morninmist
12:26 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Vote Ed.
Ed Fallone @EdFallone This letter to the Editor by Kate Kascewicz highlights important questions that everyone should be asking about... fb.me/1knDMS32J
...Crucial issues will be decided by the Supreme Court in the next 10 years. How much will outside interests be allowed to finance and possibly influence Justices? Will primary water rights be shifted from Wisconsin citizens to corporations? Will tax money continue to flow to voucher schools that pick the students they serve and are not accountable to state standards or tax payers? Will laws that further restrict voting hold up in court? We need a well qualified, independent, centrist thinker to help determine the answer to these questions on the Supreme Court. Ed Fallone fits this requirement well.
CowDung
1:51 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
...aside from the fact that he's been bought and paid for by the unions.
ann
1:12 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Ed Fallone is a criminal by allowing the head of the Latin Kings to run a social services organization. He enabled a criminal to impregnate a young woman seeking help. Ed Fallone is a monster.
morninmist
1:47 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Roggensack Sides with Big Corporations - bit.ly/Y1TBEI
Steve ®
2:07 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
LOL WI AFL-CIO
hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahaha hah hahhaha ha a a a h a....
ART FRIEDMAN
8:49 pm on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
I see those who are jealous of successful people want to put a crook on the high court.
Whatever we do we cannot put TRASH on the court. Please vote with your brains.
ART FRIEDMAN
9:13 pm on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Why not let the marketplace of ideas decide the winner instead of shutting down the voices of big business and big unions? The US Supreme Court has decided (in their infinite wisdom -ha!) that BIG money can do as it pleases when it comes to voting.
ART FRIEDMAN
9:16 pm on Wednesday, March 27, 2013
BOTTOM LINE:
Examine the record of Mr. Felonious and you'll get a picture you do not want to see in any office.
John Wilson
10:04 am on Thursday, March 28, 2013
ART FRIEDMAN -
Dear “Patience” Drake Roggensack was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2003 – born July 7, 1940 in Joliet, Illinois, and will be 73-years old this July.
I mention this only because I am somewhat concerned about her ability to function – CRS (Can’t Remember S**t) and incipient Alzheimer’s aside – in any cognitively meaningful manner, which might be of some relevance in the position of a Supreme Court Justice.
This Supreme Court Justice stated that there have never been any “inappropriate” incidents in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. That leaves me somewhat curious regarding her eye sight and her definition of “inappropriate”.
Experience is certainly not a meaningful issue here, as she has clearly demonstrated that she does, indeed possess an impressive record with decades of voting for businesses, huge corporate interests, and people with hefty bank accounts.
And then there is that troublesome “Roggensack Rule” regarding what rules should be in place to determine when a justice must step down from cases because of real or perceived conflicts of interest. It is Patience’s contention that no matter how much money you give to her candidacy and what her personal relationship is with the contributor, that she can still judge the case fairly.
Finally and perhaps most important of all, will she be capable of any adequate defense against the infamous David T. Prossser, Jr,’s choke hold, should she be reelected…
ART FRIEDMAN
10:18 am on Thursday, March 28, 2013
John Wilson, et al,
The Supreme Court of the USA tells us that when a justice cannot perform exactly how this is handled. May I suggest that a more meaningful discussion on the 2 candidates is 'who is the moral candidate?' Mr. Felonious talks about recusal, but remains silent about all the labor money he has amassed. His logic is deeply flawed because no Justice could perform if they must recuse themselves based upon past support. The Socialists among us want a court to act based on per-conceived formats. That is never justice, but politics. The electorate ought vote on the personal merits of each candidate. don't you think?
John Wilson
11:31 am on Thursday, March 28, 2013
ART FRIEDMAN –
“The Supreme Court of the USA tells us that when a justice cannot perform exactly how this is handled.”
Please cite me the source for this assertion? More importantly, please cite me ONE justice in the USA that has been removed by the process that you assert. Furthermore, we are discussing the Wisconsin Supreme Court here, not the SCOTUS.
May I suggest that if you want to discuss “morals” that you 1) stop calling a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court “Mr. Felonious” (?) 2) define what you mean by ‘who is the moral candidate’ (?) 3) provide some objective metric of what “moral” may mean to you, who displays a stunning lack of morality – implying a candidate is a felon – would be deeply appreciated.
It is clear that the Republicans and the Voucher School folks support “Patience” with their $$$.
It is equally clear that the Democrats and the Unions support Fallone with their $$$.
In an “ideal world” we would indeed merely assess any and all candidates for office on their merits; however, we do not live in an ideal world, and whether you like it or not, admit it or not, decisions about any candidate for office are always extremely political in nature; you might also add to that race, religion, value systems, social status, individual prejudices and biases.
I do not agree with your assessment regarding Mr. Fallone’ s stand on recusals; in fact, your assessment is ludicrous.