Supreme Court Justice Michael Galbleman is sternly rebuked by the New York Times editorial board today: It concludes: "To regain the public’s trust, the court must disqualify him (Gableman) if he does not face up to his impropriety and recuse himself."
The editorial is linked here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Do you think the NYT will hold Kagan to the same standards?
Please consider the source of all attacks on Michael Gableman. His Honor comitted one sin. He defeated Louis J. Butler, a pet of the left. Butler was defeated at the polls. He was defeated not once, but TWICE! Butler's judicial decisions were crippling to Wisconsin' job creation potential. As a union member(all union shop), I receive the "Labor Press", but I don't drink the kool aid. No one calls for an Aberhamson or a Walsh-Bradley recusal and it;s obvious who is propping them up. Apparently, "independent" means on my side.
Gableman not only lied about Louis Butler in his campaign for the Supreme Court, violating the judicial code of ethics, but he received free legal help from Michael Best and Fredrich while the firm was arguing cases in his court. At a minimum that creates the appearance of a conflict of interest and at worst suggests that Gableman's vote on the Court is for sale. Neither the Chief Justice nor Walsh-Bradley have even been accused of such misconduct. Anonymous, are you really so partisan that facts do not matter to you?
What Mr Rosen fails to publish \, is that Scott Walker was the one to uncover the misappropriation of funds. It's unconsciencable on how much the recall expence, verification and garbage cleanup at all these demonstrations. you ought to be ashamed of yourselves,because one day you will give account to a higher power, and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
Take it easy there, mikey. I was not impuning the integrity of your pet judges. I was merely pointing out the fact that it is human nature to villify those who don't agree with one's view of the world. Trere's no doubt in my mind how the afforementioned pair will rule, usually brfore any evidence is presented (my opinion of course)
P.S. The supreme court is a nonpartisan entity.
Post a Comment