Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Wisconsin Supreme Court Makes Rule on Campaign Contributions

This is a good rule.

A deeply divided state Supreme Court adopted a rule Wednesday that says endorsements, campaign contributions and independently run ads in themselves are not enough to force a judge off of a case.

The court adopted the proposal on a 4-3 vote, with those in the majority saying the rule was essential to clarifying policies at a time when justices increasingly face charges of bias. The dissenters said the court was only further clouding the issue.

“It will send a message that making lawful contributions is not a dishonorable thing to do and it’s not a dishonorable thing to receive,” said Justice Patience Roggensack.

As long as we have elected judges, we have to deal with the fact that they have to fund a campaign.  Barring any other evidence of bias, a campaign contribution, in and of itself, should not serve as evidence of bias.

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2053 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Nice to see that hypocrite and perennial ass hat McCabe get knocked down a few pegs.  Baby.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2009 at 2200 hrs


  2. Oh, Pelican, it’s even better than you think with respect to McCabe, who appeared before the court when it was taking public testimony yesterday.  Justice Prosser asked McCabe a few questions and absolutely destroyed him.  McCabe is perhaps the most sanctimonious turd in Madison, and there was little left of him when Prosser completed his commentary.  Hopefully Wisconsin Eye will post the video—it’s a classic!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 0609 hrs


  3. This rule could have been better had it excluded lawyers from contributing to campaigns.


    This also seems to be something our legislature should have been doing. Do all three branches get to make up rules for their own elections?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 0935 hrs


  4. I don’t support election of justices for precisely the reasons the justices have spent a good deal of time discussing - any contribution of any amount can be perceived as creating a potential bias.  That, and voters don’t have any real idea what most jurists actually do and don’t do.  Or am I to believe that the same voters that think Mike Gableman is swell also think Shirley Abrahamson is swell?

    But if you’re going to force justices to whore themselves out there like politicians to raise money, it’s silly to try and establish some kind of per se rule whereby contributions over a certain point mandate recusal.  If you want the sloppy mess that is the election of Supreme Court justices, there’s no point in trying to clean up the pigpen that results.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 29, 2009 at 1337 hrs


  5. Recess -

    Elections are the only say that the public have in the judicial system. I think only a fool would want to take that away.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2009 at 1521 hrs


  6. Both at the federal level and in many states, the people have their say in the judicial system through their elected officials in both the legislative and executive branches.  I’m pretty comfortable with using the longstanding tradition of advice and consent for state and federal courts.  As for circuit courts and muni courts, I think it matters less because the scope of those races is smaller and because their limited reach and greater emphasis on criminal matters makes them less of a target for interest groups.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 29, 2009 at 1624 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.