Here’s an ingenious example of using a system to your advantage. You may remember David Prosser. He’s the Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who won a re-election campaign when a clerk in Waukesha County “found” a bag of ballots at the last minute. He also made headlines for grabbing his fellow state Supreme Court justice by the neck during a deliberation, with the entire Court present.
The state judicial commission filed an ethics complaint against him over this, which would be decided by his fellow justices. But all of the justices were present at the attack, and Prosser came up with an idea. What if he got all four of the conservative justices on the Court to simply recuse themselves from deciding on the complaint, because they witnessed the event personally? At that point, the Court could not rule at all, because they would not have a quorum.
This is exactly what’s happening:
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman becomes the third member of the state’s high court to recuse himself from hearing the complaint against fellow Justice David Prosser.
Gableman made the expected announcement yesterday. Justices Annette Ziegler and Pat Roggensack had already said they wouldn’t take part in consideration of the complaint by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission [...] Gableman’s action means there isn’t a quorum to hear the case.
So four justices out of seven recuse, and the case ceases to exist. Gableman, by the way, ran this same trick to evade an ethics complaint stemming from his running of a false ad in a state Supreme Court race. During that time, Gableman received free legal services from a conservative law firm that does plenty of business before the Court.
Republican Calvinball in action, folks!




13 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
David Prosser is one clever little prick, DDay.
Betcha both Romney and Obama are thinking, “Hmmm … Supreme Court?”
Betcha the legal profession (the world’s second oldest, it is said) comments with roaring … silence.
Using the law to destroy the law … that is some clever, bipartisan, shit.
DW
…wayback music….
Corporate Law Firms Give Torture Judge Jay Bybee Over $3 Million In Free Legal Services
Imagine! Shirking your duty to avoid a quorum.
Who comes up with these tricks?
I believe i can sum this article up thusly: MotherF%$#*@! Godd!@# Pieces of &$#%!!!
Imagine! Grabbing a colleague by the neck in front of other colleagues.
Who comes up with these tricks?
If no quorum is reached, why doesn’t this case automatically get referred to a higher court? (Supreme Court)
The SCOTUS isn’t really there as a “higher” court for purely state matters.
But here in NH, when too many of the 5 state SC justices recuse, a statute calls for either the SC Chief or (if the Chief is recused) the Chief Judge of the Superior Court to appoint either retired SC justices or sitting Superior Court justices to sit temporarily. Surprised Wisc. doesn’t have something similar.
Imagine if liberal judges did this in a criminal case to somehow make imposition of the death penalty impossible. The caterwauling would be deafening.
You don’t need to imagine. When Wisconsin D’s abandoned their posts to prevent a quorum on the legislature, the R’s and their lapdog media went berserk.
IOKIYAR
This articles from April 23, 2012 Journal-Sentinel casts a bit more light on the article than the one linked to in dday’s post:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/prosser-seeks-recusals-that-would-end-case-cu52ugi-148613465.html
The relevant quote is at the ed of the article:
“State law does not explicitly say an order from the Supreme Court is needed to create a panel to review a judge’s conduct. Swisher said forming the panel should proceed – even if there are not enough justices available later to ultimately resolve the case – because it would provide the public with a better understanding of what happened and allow an independent group to weigh in on it, he said.”
Prosser is trying to create immunity for himself by trying to review the complaint before it goes for a hearing, which the law says is before a panel or an ordinary jury of regular folks. The Supreme Court never gets to hear the case, if at all until the end. In fact, the way the quorum rule should be working, is that the Supreme Court would not even review a final decision because there is no quorum to decide it. Prosser is trying to manipulate the rule and stand it on its head which I would suggest merits a separate complaint in its own right.
I am sure that many of you have seriously more legal expertise than my self (like my zero), but I believe I am understanding the professional behind the blog, illusory tenant, has said that there is a particular Judge who should be acting under existing WI state law to be investigating the choking incident, independent of the WI Supreme Court and has thus far failed to perform that duty.
Here is a starting point from that blog from someone who is familiar with the subject. Again, my understanding, Prosser has jumped the gun in obtaining recusals because the Court of Appeals has not yet brought a case to the Supreme Court in this matter, to recuse oneself from.
Sorry, I should have reread your comment twice before making mine. You said what I was trying to say before I commented. Thank you.
Not a problem. Your cite quotes the Journal-Sentinel article and gives it wider circulation.
I am a member of the Wisconsin Bar and have been watching these events with keen interest. There’s much more of a problem here than appears at first blush and it’s hard to find a decent report of what Prosser is doing. ou wouldn’t know from even these articles that:
1) the Judicial Commission is comprised of “5 nonlawyers nominated by the governor and appointed with the advice and consent of the senate; one trial judge of a court of record and one court of appeals judge appointed by the supreme court; and 2 members of the State Bar of Wisconsin, who are not judges or court commissioners, appointed by the supreme court.”
2) the Commission approved the complaint but then reconsidered (something it has no authority to do) and split supposedly over a disagreement over what the facts were! (That’s what a hearing is supposed to resolve).
3) they have the right to send the matter to a jury for jury trial and can even increase the jury to 12 from 6.
4) if not, it’s supposed to go to a panel of three judges, more or less two or three court of appeal judges (two if a retired reserve judge is selected).
5) There’s nowhere for the Supreme Court to be involved unless it accepts a petition for review of the findings. The rule even says: “The rules of the supreme court applicable to civil cases in the supreme court govern the review proceedings under this section.” That means there must be at least three justices who vote to even accept the case for review. If all but one of the justices has now been forced to recuse themselves, that would seem to cut off any review by the Supreme Court. So Prosser, who couldn’t get even three votes to accept review of potentially adverse findings by an impartial panel seems to be getting the case tied up in a pretzel so that it can never get any hearing at all by an impartial panel.
The “injustice” of all of this is rather obvious even to a nonlawyer however. The question is whether there is any responsible authority left in Wisconsin to take charge and see that the legal process is respected. Or maybe Prosser really is above the law.
Thanks for your elaborate explanation. In the WI 1st Assembly, I’m glad to chat with another WI FDL reader. Waiting for justice to show itself, too.
OT: Hovde has conceded, waiting for Tommy, hopefully he has stayed away from the punch bowl so far this evening.
Edit: Maybe not. ;-)