Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the liberal candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, says she supports an independent and impartial judiciary, but she sat in judgement on cases concerning clients of her husband’s cleaning business.
WISN-AM radio personality Dan O’Donnell reported Monday that an analysis of Neubauer’s statements of economic interest shows the judge hearing 101 cases involving her husband’s former business clients. O’Donnell reported:
In 73 cases, Judge Neubauer sat on a case involving a public sector client (such as a municipality like the City of Kenosha or an executive department of state government such as the Department of Veterans Affairs). In 28 cases, she sat on cases involving private sector clients including Associated Bank, Froedtert Hospital, Abbot Labs, Walgreen Co., and Best Buy.
In 79 of those 101 total cases, Neubauer joined the majority in ruling in favor of a Kranz client. In 31 of those rulings, Neubauer herself wrote the majority opinion.
O’Donnell wrote that it was unclear whether Neubauer’s husband Jeffrey Neubauer had an “economic interest” in the cases because the judge stopped disclosing her husband’s clients from 2010 until the business was sold in 2017. The clients in question were on the judge’s 2009 financial disclosure statement.
Everything but tech support.
Not at all surprised.
I’m not surprised that Kevin’s not surprised.
Now you are getting it…liberalism is corrupt.
The only thing I was getting was you’re not surprised. Anything above and beyond that are voices in your head.
Who is going to be the first to denounce the outside money coming in to the WI SC race ?
We should be busy denouncing Lisa’s awful judicial record, but instead you libs focus on Hagedorn’s charity work as something that should be criticized.
That is what is truly disgusting about this race.
Wait, Nord didn’t say anything about Hagedorn’s charity work.
But he runs constant liberal interference to take focus off the issue at hand…Lisa’s awful judicial record!
Part of the interference is the liberal anti-Christian bigotry on full dispaly against Hagedorn.
I am disgusted by the liberal hate.
Thanks for correcting k once again.
You erred again, I provide fact based commentary to opposition to exaggeration, obfuscation, hyperbole and out right fabrication. Get it right.
Kevin said, “I am disgusted by the liberal hate.”
You’re example of conservative love and tolerance is your shining example. There’s a word for that. Hmmmm, let me think for a millisecond. Hypocrite?
Be bold, Owen. Tell us what the recusal standard should be.
@ J Faust: Be bold, Owen. Tell us what the recusal standard should be
Do your own research and report back on what standards she did not violate. It is was certainly all here for Judge Neubauer to read up on. All kinds or recusal standards applicable when a judge is sitting on a case involving a spouse’s business interests.
For Judge Ziegler, lack of knowledge about the law was not excused. It was a violation of an arcane statute, one of the purposes of the reprimand was to put all lawyers and judges on future notice.
When godless liberals tell Christians how a bible based church and school should be run, in direct contradiction to the bible, one should NOT be disgusted by that?
Can christians express any public opinions about evil at all? Or is there no such thing as evil? just a different level of tolerance for bad behavior?
Then openly denounce the awful and disgusting liberal attacks against Hagedorn’s charity work….
You can do it.
Mark, so it extends down to the customers/clients of a judge’s spouse’s business?
Reminds me of the idea that judges can’t rule on cases involving people who donated to their campaign – so just donate to their campaign if you don’t want them to be your judge.
So all I’d need to do is become a customer of a judge’s spouse’s business?
You brought up the charity work, not me. And I don’t care one hoot what, if any, charity work Hagedorn does, or doesn’t do. But I won’t vote for him because he is a fanatical homophobe, and if he is anything nearly a fanatical as you, a science denier as well. There is no place in modern society for such ignorance and intolerance.
I see you doubled down on Christian bigotry and hate.
Encouraging one in grace of Christ, away from sin, does not make one a “homophobe”. It makes you a good Christian.
Stop your hate Nord.
Nope, not at all. And I never used the word hate. That is all on you. You seem to be quite the hate monger lately. Is that a conservative thing? Nature or nurture ?
When you call someone a “homophobe” for practicing their Christianity….
That is bigotry and hate on your part.
Merriam Webster says:
Let me guess. You say Hagedorn’s aversion of homosexual behavior (I know, love the sinner, hate the sin) is rational, so it’s not “homophobia.”
I am basing my position of Hagedorn on his words and his actions. If you dispute what he has said and done on the subject, enlighten us all with the information. But keep in mind that your interpretation may be quite different than what Hagedorn feels.
Would Kevin and Hagedorn think it was OK to do what Brunei does?
Christians accept all sinners to their congregation. We hope they are moved by the Holy Spirit, through faith, to understand Jesus is their Savior.
As part of becoming a Christian, we have a thankful desire to live lives of thankfulness that sets us apart from the unbelieving world. this means avoiding a life of open sin. One of those thankful demonstrations is to reserve sexual relations for only inside a marriage of God’s design.
If you are gay and wish to contiunue to openly sin, you are free to do that as an unbeliever. As a Christian, it would imperil my soul to let your open sin go unchecked, so I would gently correct at first, and then follow the Matthew 18 process. It would be the same if my fellow Christian steals from my neighbor and intends to keep on doing it. Or fails to atend church to stay in the sacrament and the Word. We are to live lives of thankfulness that distinguishes ourselves from the unbelieving world.
Christians wish to save all souls from the consequence of sin. We want everyone to be in heaven.
That is not “homophobic”. If we had an irrational fear, aversion to the gay community, we would cease to evangelize the gay community. Christians seem to evangelize to the gay community quite a bit. I think the gay community would agree that Christians “overevangelize” the gay community, if anything.
So your name calling is completely false.
So you oppose making any sort of law against homosexual activity?
Don’t want to stone them like the middle east?
“Christians accept all sinners to their congregation”. Except hagedorn. And I’m pretty sure k would be opposed as well.
Hagedorn welcomes repentant sinners who may have had sexual sin outside marriage of God’s design.
Unrepentant sinners are not Christians until they see the seriousness of sin and repent.
So your statement again shows a shocking lack of understanding your unbelief.
I don’t support laws that either punish or reward anyone that wears their carnal choices on their sleeve.
We are all more than our sexual choices. It should never be our identity.
Laws are for thee, not for me.
So you advocate a law at how Christians should run the church?
You want to mandate Christians have to put up with open, unrepentant sin in the church?
I always knew you were weak in denouncing evil, but you openly side that fact with the idea that open unrepentant sin should be tolerated in the church?
Didn’t you criticize Catholics for doing that heavily?
Not at all. I don’t care how any religion runs it’s church as long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedoms of others. And without public funds. But I will denounce any politician of potential judge that colors their public service and/or decision with their religious beliefs.
“I always knew you were weak in denouncing evil, but you openly side that fact with the idea that open unrepentant sin should be tolerated in the church?” That is gibberish. Can you translate for us?
Nope never criticized catholics for doing anything heavily. You are making that up.
This sin stuff is so complicated with Kevin. Nuance. Consistency. Everybody sins, no one should sin, sins are instantly forgiven, sins aren’t tolerated, won’t you renounce the things I say are sins? So complicated.
It is clear you don’t get the difference between repentant and unrepentant sin.
Do you want to take a break from your BBT religion and come to some bible study?
Consider adding some diversity and true meaning to your life.
Welcome to a bible study on it.
Everyone sins. What the church corrects is open unrepentance among its members.
For instance, if I steal flowers from your flower bed openly to give to my wife. If I say that was not wrong. Fellow church members start correction process under Matthew 18. If I keep stealing from you, and keep saying it is OK, eventually I will be “excommunicated”. Not for the sin, but the open and willful unrepentance of sin. The “excommunication” is meant as a message that your open and willful unrepentant actions have placed you outside Christ’s grace. The hope is: you see the seriousness of your action and repent. At that stage I would be welcome back with open arms.
It is never a sin that separates you from Jesus and the church, it is ongoing embrace of sin and open unrepentance that separates you from Christ’s grace.
Welcome to a bible study on it. When would you like to come?
So you did not criticize Catholics for the sex abuse scandals and the unrepentant cover ups?
That is a perfect example of what can happen when unrepentant sin is allowed to continue in the church without correction.
I like the joke about the sign at the Unitarian church:
Bible Study 7:00 p.m..
Bring your Bible and a pair of scissors.
That is pretty funny.
That sign would work for any Democrat platform plank meeting as well.
If you are so hung up on repentance, when are you going to denounce the unrepentant POTUS, a serial adulterer and liar (9000 and counting). Until you do that, you have no right to demand anything from anybody. I’ll bet you won’t.
I would encourage everybody to read this. And I’ll bet k won’t.