Wisconsin justices criticize proposed recusal rule
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Supreme Court justices are criticizing a proposal that would require them to step aside from cases involving parties who spend $1,000 or more to help get them elected.
During a public hearing Wednesday, some justices said the proposal by the League of Women Voters went too far in limiting free speech rights while others said it ignored non-monetary campaign help such as endorsements and volunteer time.
Justice Michael Gableman was downright hostile to the group, which says the rule is a necessary reform amid skyrocketing spending in judicial campaigns.
Gableman attacked the league as a left-wing group trying to limit campaign speech and have government regulators, not voters, hold judges accountable for ethical lapses. He scoffed at the idea that judges would “be willing to throw a case for $1,000.”
Oct 29, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gabe saved his venom for near the end--and only let loose on a woman from the League, I think. Too much of a coward to take on a man--needs to make sure the 'woman' gets put in her place. Prosser wasn't much better. Patience showed how intellectually bankrupt she is, claiming that no supreme court has ever required a recusal--but then the Chief Justice reminded her of a few examples....Part of me is angry about the makeup of the court; but part of me is not--maybe ten years of the individual being crapped on will finally make people take that election seriously, instead of the 20% turnout with Gabe's election.
Oct 29, 2009 at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gableman needs to move to a country where they imprison people for questioning their government. Or get some anger management training.
Oct 29, 2009 at 2:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
For once, I agree with every comment posted here thus far.
Oct 29, 2009 at 12:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why stop at judges? Why not politicians too?
Oct 28, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Justice Michael Gableman was downright hostile to the group" "Gableman attacked the league"
And this is how an impartial Supreme Court Justice is supposed to act?
Oct 28, 2009 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
hockeyjockey... you said it brother..
Oct 28, 2009 at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Of course Gableman is going to complain since he was the biggest recipient of campaign largess. But of course, as usual, the proposal is all the fault of the evil liberals who want to limit "free speech." Even asking Gableman and Ziegler to police themselves is a joke - it never will happen.
It's nice to know that now it's not just the legislative and executive branches that can be bought and sold - it's the judicial branch as well.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.