Thursday, October 29, 2009

The Supreme Court Gets It Right

It won't surprise anyone that I think the state Supreme Court did the right thing yesterday in rejecting the recusal standard proposed by the League of Women Voters and clarification of what, in and of itself, should not require recusal. The latter was, I think, required by what I think has been wildly irresponsible - and ideologically imbalanced - allegations and hints of bias from groups like the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and One Wisconsin Now.

So I am also sympathetic to Justice David Prosser's impatience with Michael McCabe. The problem is not simply Justice Prosser's understandable irritation at the partisan way in which WDC pushes its "reform" agenda, but the way in which WDC itself undercuts public confidence in the court by its cynical promotion of extremely naive notions about the way in which the process works.

There may be judges who would sell themselves for the price of a lawful campaign contribution or endorsement but I have yet to meet one. It is certainly the case that elected judges worry about reelection. One judge has famously referred to the subject as a crocodile who sits in the bathtub while you're shaving. You try to ignore him, but you can't.

But nothing proposed by LWV would change that. If it worked the way folks like McCabe want it to, it would hand judicial elections to incumbents and insiders. What it would really do is complete the process of handing them to independent groups.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"There may be judges who would sell themselves for the price of a lawful campaign contribution or endorsement but I have yet to meet one. It is certainly the case that elected judges worry about reelection. One judge has famously referred to the subject as a crocodile who sits in the bathtub while you're shaving. You try to ignore him, but you can't."

How would you know if you did meet such a judge? Do they have a birthmark on their forehead? A "for sale" lapel pin?

You try very hard to make this ideological, just as your critics do. But it's not about ideology; its about being able to trust the Courts.

The new rule is: we cannot trust the courts. Not every judge is for sale, not every judge would sell themselves, but now they can. And as you remarked on above, the need to raise money for re-elections is the crocodile in their bathtub. Some will, and eventually most will; that will be the price of keeping their jobs.


The State Bar of Wisconsin suggested referring the matter for more study, so the Court did not need to make this decision, nor at this time. If the Court thinks their decision will "end the matter", then it is they who are naive about how the process works.

sean s.

illusory tenant said...

Your choice of emphasis — that the court rejected the LWV's proposal — is tremendously insignificant. Anybody could have predicted that.

What's left unsaid here is that Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce is now authoring judicial ethics rules for the court.

Or is that what you're saying the court "got right"?

Anonymous said...

Our court system is now for sale.

Anonymous said...

It would have been better had they stopped contributions from lawyers.

Anonymous said...

illusory_tenant

It makes no difference who authored the rule. It's a bad rule with an odor of corruption that will stick to this Court for a long time.

I don't know if the Court is for sale, that's part of the problem: how to tell. But for sure they've given themselves permission to take bribes.

sean s.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 3:28 PM;

Who is doing the bribing is irrelevant; lawyers or ministers or tavern owners. At least lawyers should have a good idea of what they are buying; being in the business as they are.

sean s.

illusory tenant said...

I don't think the "new" rule is such a big deal anyway, Sean, since it's a per se thing and doesn't exclude consideration of other attending factors.

But certain aspects of Wednesday's spectacle were pretty appalling, including which front group's language was expressly adopted and by whom.

Anonymous said...

Was there any discussion on what can be done to assure people of fair and impartial courts?