Jesus H. Christ, Wisconsin's Supreme Court Says Elections To Court Can Be Bought

What a fucking mess.


"Wisconsin High Court: Donations Don't Require Recusals"
http://host.madison.com/news/state-and-regional/wisconsin/article_d9c37cd7-19e0-5d35-b266-9a6bf1076a66.html

The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted rules Wednesday allowing judges to hear cases involving their biggest campaign contributors, siding with business interests and rejecting calls for reform.
Voting 4-3, the court approved rules saying donations by groups and individuals to judges and independent spending to help them get elected do not by themselves require judges to step aside from cases.
The additions to the judicial code of conduct were proposed by two powerful Wisconsin business groups, the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and adopted without a single change.
Justices Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler said the rules would prevent litigants from trying to force judges off cases simply because they received legal donations. Justice David Prosser said it would protect justices from attacks by those who unfairly suggest campaign money influences decisions.

I don't know, you'd think there'd be SOME provision...

I mean, a case is assigned to be presented before Judge X. Days before trial begins, Judge X receives the maximum allowable "contributions" from Company Y and all of its employees. Judge X then dismisses the case days later. THEY DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?

We've got to stop looking for smoking guns and start using COMMON SENSE.

It's the least the justices can do in return.

Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted rules Wednesday allowing judges to take bribes.

You nailed it.

The US Supreme court decided in June this year that WV Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself on account of this very same kind of conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co.

Brent Benjamin was outright bought and paid for by Don Blankenship of Massey Energy.

We'd be better off having judges appointed.

As long as they have to go through an election, they're going to take campaign contributions. Let's remember that "our" judges get massive campaign contributions from organizations that we like. Would we want to them to recuse themselves on any issue involving labor law because they've been supported by the AFL-CIO? It's a weird Catch-22 situation where, the more you like a judge, the less you should give to him as a candidate because otherwise he can't rule on your issues.

Have the State Supremes be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Assembly.

But don't give them appointments for life like SCOTUS justices. Terms should be no longer than six years. That way at least a little accountability might be retained.

Do you think a single six-year term or can their be the possibility of re-appointement.

Part of me says, "One Term Only" to keep fresh perspectives coming into the court, but at the same time, without the hope of being re-appointment (and the accountability that comes with it), it could be more likely for justices to rule in accordance with the wishes of interest groups.

That way the advantages of continuity and experience could be weighed against a fresh start. I would particularly like to see this applied to the SCOTUS. I can remember being taught as far back as grade school that Supreme Court justices could be counted on the be nonpartisan. Election 2000 showed anyone with two brain cells to rub together what a sick joke that was.

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=175032


WisPolitics: Prosser rips McCabe over blog posts
10/29/2009

A hearing today over proposed rules to clarify when judges should recuse themselves from cases involved a heated exchange between Justice David Prosser (left) and one witness.

Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign told the state Supreme Court during public testimony on the proposals that public confidence in the court has dropped significantly with most now believing that campaign contributions influence decisions.

Prosser fired back with a series of comments he pulled from the WDC blog and Web site, include a June post in which McCabe wrote there “is no way in hell either Prosser or Crooks should be anywhere in the room when the Supreme Court” hears a new appeal from former GOP Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen on his retrial on felony corruption charges, which an appeals court overturned.

Prosser, a former Assembly GOP leader, served as a character witness during Jensen’s trial.

so that when the pics were taken they could advertise for some 'campaign contributions?'

This has implications far beyond Wisconsin.

Goodness, who would say such a thing?!

How dare they suggest that money given to an elected official has any bearing on their actions?! Bribes, er, I mean money is protected as free speech. It's the American way.