I want to see the internal records. Judicial ethics matter, but who's watching the ethics of the ethics watcher, the Judicial Commission? The people have a compelling interest in seeing what happened.Okay. So updating my analysis to reflect the news: Prosser need not resign, and the Commission must now release the records. If it does not, we should assume the records reflect bias on the part of the Commission, as charged by Justice Prosser.
Why, for example, was there no charge against Justice Bradley, who, based on the police investigation, which I've read, seems to have charged across the room at Prosser and was perhaps waving fists in his face, causing him to make a reflexive, defensive move that touched her. And she seems to have accused him of putting her in a "chokehold," which none of testimony (from 6 of the 7 justices) supports.
Why take what Prosser did out of context? That alone raises an inference of bias on the Commission....
Prosser must waive confidentiality first. He's going public with his assertion that the Commission was biased, but he still needs to talk to lawyers about whether to waive confidentiality. If he does, I assume the Commission will have to release the records to rebut the inference of bias. If, on the other hand, after making the accusation of bias, Prosser fails to waive confidentiality, I think Prosser should resign and let Scott Walker appoint a replacement.
March 22, 2012
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser asks the Judicial Commission to release its records of its inquiry into ethics charges against him.
This is the notorious "chokehold" matter, which we talked about 2 days ago. You may remember that I said: