Thursday, July 01, 2010

Gableman Agonistes

I am on deadline for a column in the Journal Sentinel so I can only make a few preliminary comments on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's actions in Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Gableman. One group of Justices (Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler) would have accepted the recommendation of the three judge panel and dismiss the complaint. Another group (Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley and Crooks)would have rejected it and found that Justice Gableman violated SCR 60.06(3)(c).

There is much to be said about that (and I will later), but it gets even more interesting. Normally, when the Court deadlocks, the decision below stands. But the opinion of the three judge panel is a recommendation. What happens when it is not accepted.

The Abrahamson group wants to treat review of the recommendation as review of a motion for summary judgement, i.e., a request that the Court decide the matter without trial because there are no material issues of fact. In proceeding before the three judge panel, both the Commission and Justice Gableman agreed that this was the proper way to proceed, i.e., they agreed that there was nothing to be tried because no facts were disputed. The result was a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed.

The Abrahamson group now argues that failure to accept the recommendation is tantamount to a denial of summary judgment. When summary judgment is denied, the matter normally proceeds to trial. Thus, they want to remand the matter for a jury trial.

But there are problems with that. First, the statute governing these proceedings seems to require that a jury trial be requested before the complaint is filed. That did not happen. If there is a trial, it would have to be before the three judge panel.

But, in the view of the three judge panel, there are no issues to be tried. They concluded that the complaint, either as a matter of statutory construction (for two of the judges) or as a matter of constitutional law (for Judge Fine), must be dismissed as a matter of law. Neither the Judicial Commission nor Justice Gableman believes that there any new facts that bear on the matter. If the thing that happens here is that the proceeding below continues before the three judge panel, it would presumably reach the same decision.

In saying that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission "needs" to request a jury trial, the Abrahamson group essentially wants the Commission to start all over again and do what it did not do the first time around.It is telling the Commission, "look, you lost before the three judge panel. Now that you know that, try a jury." But the rules don't seem to permit that.

Beyond that, as a practical matter, replacing the three judge panel with a jury will do not break the impasse. No member of the Court believes that the there are any material facts in dispute, so there would seem to be no reason for a jury verdict to change any one's mind. It is quite clear that three members of the Court (those in the Prosser group) believe that the complaint should be dismissed as a matter of law. A jury verdict in the Commission's favor won't change that. Conversely, there are three members of the Court who believe, as a matter of law, that the Mitchell ad violates SCR 60.06(3)(c). A jury verdict in Justice Gableman's favor won't change that.

The only way that the impasse might be broken is if the composition of the Court changes. Is it appropriate to keep the matter alive in the hope that this might happen? Is there any point in conducting a jury trial that might prolong the controversy but has little or no chance to resolve it?

More to come.


Cross posted at Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

If J. Butler had a problem with the ad he should have taken it to court himself rather then tax payers paying for all of this.

Gableman was a candidate at the time of the ad and should not be treated as if he did these things from the bench.

His record as a judge was clean and we need people like that on the high court.

Anonymous said...

Anoyn: listen to yourself: We should excuse Gableman because he was a candidate and not acting from the judge?

Respectfully, we do not need people that will say anything to get elected.

FYI, Gableman's legal acumen as a circuit court judge was not exactly stellar. See Lyman Lumber of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Yourchuck Video, Inc. (2005)(Gableman reversed for not applying the plain language of a contract)

Pearson v. Cobb (2005) (reversed for making up his own standard instead of applying the law),

I'm all in favor of cutting the guy a break when there are difficult questions of first impressions of law, but the cases I cited are not in tha category.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:55 - "Respectfully, we do not need people that will say anything to get elected."

Was this tongue in cheek or don't you want anyone on the bench? Or, any elected position?

I suppose you agree with the decisions of judges you support. Although, they all have been down the road of questionable decisions.

Terrence Berres said...

On the issue of legal acumen (and the issue of who gets links), Tom Foley said today that, inter alia, "...Gableman has demonstrated a high degree of competence on the bench... ."

John Foust said...

I know, Terrence. With that, Foley's totally disrupted my ongoing visual that Gableman's been practicing in the corner with a thick pencil and the wide-ruled newsprint with the dashed line through the middle, and that someday they'd let him sit at the big table.

The good stuff is still over at Foley's place, though. Three days later, and I'm still chucking at Pete Gruett's dry observation about the ruling on the marriage amendment, that it was "Gableman wrote the decision that the two sentences, taken together, are consistent and relate to the same subject?"

Anonymous said...

awesome blog, do you have twitter or facebook? i will bookmark this page thanks. jasmin holzbauer

Anonymous said...

Seriously, great post. Appreciate your discussing this things. I seriously take pleasure in it

Anonymous said...

Appreciate your sharing. Rather simple and easy to master. Congratulations!

Anonymous said...

Really everyone!! It's the most fascinating posting My partner and i ever before read through! Worth your time. Continue the good work.

Anonymous said...


Good post. I learn something new and challenging on websites I stumbleupon everyday. It will always be helpful to read content from other authors and practice a little something from their websites.