April 24, 2012

"I think they should all recuse themselves, period."

"You can't be a witness and still sit on the case."

31 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

"James Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra Law School in New York, said he believed the justices who witnessed the altercation could remain on the case, particularly at a stage when all the court needs to do is issue a perfunctory order to create the panel that would hear the case."

-- Correct. They can remain on the case. We're arguing whether they should. It's interesting; the further to the right you are, the more your conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest. In fact, the appearance of a conflict is enough, to maintain the high moral caliber of the judiciary. The further to the left, the less that any conflicts are real conflicts, since these are just perfunctory matters on the ultimate road to guilt and innocence.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, why not try Prosser on assault? That's what they're claiming happened. These charges don't need to start at the supreme court level.

Ann Althouse said...

"Also, why not try Prosser on assault? That's what they're claiming happened. These charges don't need to start at the supreme court level."

There's already been a whole process at that level. So you're assuming this is the "start." It's really, really not.

chickenlittle said...

You'll never read Bradley quoted saying Je recuse! in the Madison press.

dbp said...

If I recall the whole tawdry affair correctly, wasn't there one judge who wasn't there when the altercation took place?

Matthew Sablan said...

Oh. So this is like a wrongful death suit after someone is found not guilty.

bagoh20 said...

This is a case where a beer summit would be the best approach. Nobody needs to recuse.

But then again, considering the ruffian nature of this group, there could be fisticuffs with beer involved, which would at least settle the matter.

If they do have a court proceeding, I want to see Prosser's abs. I'm betting he has a tattoo that says "Thug for life".

Ann Althouse said...

"Oh. So this is like a wrongful death suit after someone is found not guilty."

Yes. Basically. The standards of proof are different. The elements are different. There's no chargeable crime, but you could still say the behavior was bad for a judge.

Why Prosser was the only one accused of an ethics violation after the melée, I don't understand.

Matthew Sablan said...

More that it was a different approach to determining what seems like the same issue. Which is more flip than serious; wrongful death suits, for example, get a lot of flack as being a retrial with a lower burden of proof (even though that is not true). Pursuing the ethics charge might have merit, but it seems like it is just another attempt to prove the same thing.

Rocketeer said...

Why Prosser was the only one accused of an ethics violation after the melée, I don't understand.

Oh, I'm betting you do.

Lem said...

he he he..

The professor said melée.

traditionalguy said...

Prosser seems to be charged with a version of "Conduct Unbecoming a Judge."

That would be a catch all to be used when the Court cannot find a person did wrong, but they don't want to let you off because the way you handled it embarrassed them.

And everyone knows that a woman is incapable of the rude and crude man's behavior because a refined woman cannot stand embarrassment.

edutcher said...

Don't recuse, just grow up.

FedkaTheConvict said...

>>If I recall the whole tawdry affair correctly, wasn't there one judge who wasn't there when the altercation took place?<<

Justice N. Patrick Crooks was not there when the incident occurred. All the others are witnesses to at least part.

Pogo said...

I think Prosser should vote too, and in honor of Sen. Al trunkful-o-ballots Franken, cast multiple votes.

bagoh20 said...

"Why Prosser was the only one accused of an ethics violation after the melée, I don't understand. "

The answer to that is the lie of feminism.

Calypso Facto said...

Prosser and Bradley were involved in a tussle of disputed instigation and actions. If Bradley gets to vote, Prosser should too.

Except that he has, again, taken the higher road of unilateral recusal, just like he took the higher roads of not leaking misleading reports to the press about the incident and not filing an ethics charge just because he disagreed with someone.

paminwi said...

I thought Prosser had asked to have all documents relating to this issue released to the public. As I understand it he is the only one to be able to make that request. If he has made the request why has it not happened?


On 3/22/12 the Capital Times said "Bradley and Prosser, obviously, can’t participate in determining whether to discipline Prosser." and yet... Todd (Court spokesman) said Bradley is declining to say whether she would participate in the decision. (Cap Times 3/17/12)

Really? Bradley has not yet decided whether to participate or not?

P.S. Huff said...

"You can't be a witness and still sit on the case."

Marbury v. Madison, anyone?

Lem said...

Kangaroos dont recuse.

Chip Ahoy said...

The only warning I would have about sitting on cases beyond the obvious mindfulness toward handles, is to be mindful of wheels as well. I would advise caution so that at the critical moment of weight shift the thing does not go skidding off on its wheels which could lead to an injured coccyx.

Heh heh heh I said coccyx.

Lem said...

Prosser should do what the Obama adm did with their healthcare Oral arguments.. where they define a provision as a penalty one day and as a tax the next.

Prosser can be both.. just not at the same time.. let a day pass between robes.

In real-ville they call it courtroom drama.

Lem said...

I meant roles.. I think.. now I dont know which one looks better.

Lem said...

It should be hard to sleep on a case too, I would imagine.. unless its a pillow case.

Lem said...

Ruth Bader is likely the best ever.. at least in modern times.

Lem said...

I'll be back later.. go Sox.

rhhardin said...

The best outcome would be a secret ballot with more votes than justices.

Richard Dolan said...

Just pathetic. Everything about the disfunctional supreme court in Wisconsin is a continuing embarrassment. At a minimum, Prosser, Bradley and Abrahamson should all resign. If they had the decency, or even the objectivity, to see how their shenanigans are undermining public respect for the judiciary, they would quit tomorrow. Of course, if they had even a modicum of decency, the whole stupid brouhaha would never have happened.

Carnifex said...

Instead of recusing how about retiring. A less serious, judicious bunch would be hard to fathom.

Carnifex said...

oops injudicious

ed said...

I don't see how Prosser is anything but a victim so far. So why should Prosser resign?

Frankly Prosser has invited this nonsense in a way simply because he has refused to fight as dirty as his enemies.

Moral of this story: if you're a declared enemy of liberals, then be prepared to nuke them until they glow.