My latest column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is here. I have a little over 500 words in the daily paper and decided to explain the concerns of Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler in State v. Allen. Of course, there is much more to say on the matter and I am finishing a law review article (more like 12,ooo words) that tries to do that.
I understand that this may, once again, prompt some to talk smack on the Gableman ad which I have, of course, criticized. (In fact, my criticism was cited by briefs in support of at least some of the recusal motions.) Nor does this necessarily mean that the position of those three justices on the power of the Court to mandate the recusal of a peer justice is consistent with Caperton. I think that's a more difficult question.
What I do maintain is that aggressive recusal requirements - particularly when not based on allegations of bias against a particular person or class of persons defined in a way that is divorced from judicial philosophy - will become unmanageable.