Prosser earlier asked Abrahamson, Bradley and Justice Patience Roggensack to remove themselves from the case. None has said what she will do.It seems like the real question here is how (not whether) they will get to 4 recusals. Why did Prosser ask Abrahamson, Bradley and Justice Patience Roggensack first and then Crooks when he hasn't asked Ziegler and Gableman? It seems like a game designed to get to 4 using more liberal members of the court, with Ziegler and Gableman held in reserve and usable to get to 4 if the liberals won't recuse.
Prosser has said he will not participate in the case. If three others step aside, the ethics case cannot proceed. That's because four of the seven justices must participate to take any action.
२६ एप्रिल, २०१२
"As a material witness and, in effect, an accuser of Justice Prosser, Justice Crooks cannot sit in judgment of Justice Prosser..."
Crooks was the one justice who wasn't there to witness the "chokehold" scene, but the ethics charge against Prosser also encompasses the "bitch" incident, which Crooks did witness.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
If they don't recuse, do they open themselves to ethics charges?
Interestingly, Gableman recalled a version of events in the chamber no other justices did.
Also interesting, the WIGOP has not won a case this year without Gableman on the court. He's reliable that way.
I think they're looking for a way to kill this nonsense before they make any bigger fools of themselves.
"It seems like a game designed to get to 4 using more liberal members of the court, with Ziegler and Gableman held in reserve and usable to get to 4 if the liberals won't recuse."
Well, he started out by asking the three women to recuse, even though they were similarly situated with at least two of the men. So why not look at it through that lens instead? If you do, you might even be able to conjure up a way to stretch Batson to apply to it. Whoopie! Prosser using unconstitutional tactics in desperate attempt ... blah-blah-blah.
What a pathetic spectacle the WiSCt is making of itself.
All four conservative justices have had an ethics complaint filed against them.
All four conservative justices have had an ethics complaint filed against them.
Filed by a liberal justice. What's your point? That the liberals piss and moan and file complaints when they don't get their way, while the conservatives are more mature than that?
Thanks for the clarification.
That the liberals piss and moan and file complaints when they don't get their way, while the conservatives are more mature than that?
Ah, no. Gableman has been hit twice, for very good reasons. The last complaint was for receiving free legal help to deal with the first ethics complaint, and then ruling on cases (in favor) of the same firm that gave him the free legal help.
It seems like a game designed to get to 4 using more liberal members of the court, with Ziegler and Gableman held in reserve and usable to get to 4 if the liberals won't recuse.
Recusal by 'thousand cuts'
by your logic garage, the liberal justices who received union donations are guilty of ethics violations unless they always rule against the unions. I agree with you.
by your logic garage, the liberal justices who received union donations are guilty of ethics violations unless they always rule against the unions.
Except receiving free legal help, or gifts, is expressly forbidden in Wisconsin by the code of ethics. And receiving campaign contributions, is not.
OK. That makes it ethical.
My understanding of the “free legal help” that Justice Gableman received was that the law firm agreed to represent him on a contingency basis, i.e. if Gableman “won” the case, he would be eligible to have his legal fees paid for as the prevailing party but if he didn’t “win,” the attorneys would collect nothing other than their ordinary legal expenses (which I believe they said that Justice Gableman reimbursed them for).
I’m not aware that the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct “expressly forbid[s]” a judge hiring an attorney on a contingency basis.
Thanks for the ethical framing of your remark garage.
That's ridiculous Thorley and I think you know it. Gableman ruled on 8 different cases where MB&F represented one of the parties. The reason Gableman didn't "win" is because the court deadlocked 3-3. 100k in never invoiced legal fees isn't a gift?
Shorter Garage: "Look====>_________"
"But one time, a conservative did ________!!"
Must still be smarting from how bad he looked on all of the Trayvon Martin threads.
But, he had his reasons. Partisan reasons, but reasons nonetheless.
Shorter Garage: "Look====>_________"
Gableman was mentioned in the post. It's on topic. Trayvon Martin isn't.
And you couldn't come up with one example of me looking bad in those threads? Weak.
One example? Hard to choose, but let's go with your claim that Zimmerman hadn't been beaten, based upon the grainy, possibly edited video by ABC, coupled with your claim that he couldn't have had a broken nose, because you saw no blood. This, despite the publicly available police report in which the police stated otherwise.
You chose to believe it was a cover up. "I have my reasons " was the phrase you used. No evidence, just "reasons" that just happened to fit with your preconceived and ill conceived beliefs, as well as your partisan motives.
That looks pretty bad.
If you're to put words in my mouth, at least link it.
Suck it Garage, you looked like an ass on the Zimmerman affair. Own up to it.
Pussy.
All four conservative justices have had an ethics complaint filed against them.
With one verbal reprimand to show for it.
The Ziegler and Gableman-Best failure to recuse charges are at least understandable, though I don't know if they rise to the level of "ethics" charges any more than Kagan's decision not to recuse during the Obamacare trial. But the Gableman political ad charges and this charge against Prosser for a highly contentious accusation without poof are just petty name-calling and an attempt to un-democratically change election outcomes.
March 29 thread, "Robert Zimmerman Interview."
You wrote "There was nothing to indicate any of that happened to Zimmerman from those tapes. Certainly no broken nose as his father claimed. He's lying." that was your 12:57 bit of wisdom.
He, in this situation referring to Zimmerman's dad. You, from what, 1500 miles away, knew he was not just wrong, but lying. Nice.
Your "I have my reasons" comment came in later, at 4:14, as in "I think they are lying. I have my reasons, you are free to disagree."
Later, you enlightened us on your reasons, which were not reasons, but more assertions that they were lying. That was in your 7:16 post, in which, I will grant that you admitted you could be totally wrong.
You were.
I put no words in your mouth, Garage, I used your own.
I will also admit that you weren't the only one to look bad on the whole affair. Lots of people, on several blogs I read made lots of assertions about what "must have happened," and that "it couldn't have happened any other way." Starts with NBC and the New York Times.
You wrote "There was nothing to indicate any of that happened to Zimmerman from those tapes. Certainly no broken nose as his father claimed. He's lying." that was your 12:57 bit of wisdom.
There was nothing from the tapes that indicated his head was bashed on the concrete or had a broken nose. I think he IS lying. Big fucking whup. Deal with it. The prosecutors appear to agree with me. He is being charged with murder, no?
The police report, available at the time, and linked in that thread states you're wrong.
Of course, you "have your reasons." What you fail to understand is that those "reasons" are based on nothing other than your own preconceived ideas and biases. You think he is lying, but you have nothing on which to base that. Pictures at the scene show that Zimmerman was bloodied. The police report states that he was bloody. The EMT report states that he was bloody. Zimmerman's hospital records (of course this comes from Zimmerman's lawyer, so careful) state he was treated for a broken nose.
Your evidence to show he is lying:
What you fail to understand is that those "reasons" are based on nothing other than your own preconceived ideas and biases.
The prosecutor seems to agree with me.
And what are you, the Amazing Kreskin?
I'm not the one who decided Zimmerman was lying, and who still states he was lying about the injuries in the face of evidence to the contrary. With no evidence otherwise.
And you call me the Amazing Kreskin?
Projection.
The white lady prosecutor, Angela Corey, will be lucky to be Nifonged after what she's done to Marissa Alexander. But y'all agree so she's got that.
'm not the one who decided Zimmerman was lying, and who still states he was lying about the injuries in the face of evidence to the contrary. With no evidence otherwise.
When I wrote the comment, I saw zero evidence of the claim his nose was broken or his head being bashed into a sidewalk. If you have some official evidence that his nose was broken or his head being bashed onto a sidewalk, feel free to LINK to it.
No photos, Garage? Here you go.
But you still maintain he's lying, even after you know of the evidence.
On the March 29 thread, you were directed by Ken, at 10:39 to a report that Zimmerman had been treated by paramedics at the scene. At 2:57 in the same thread, Bender linked to the police reports. The reports have since been taken down, but Bender describes them earlier in the thread.
It must take quite a bit of effort to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't fit your theory that is based upon no evidence. Oh, except your "reasons."
Here you go, Garage, look at pg. 4, where the police officer notes that Zimmerman's back was wet and grass covered, and that he was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.
The more we link, the worse it gets for you.
On the March 29 thread, you were directed by Ken, at 10:39 to a report that Zimmerman had been treated by paramedics at the scene. At 2:57 in the same thread, Bender linked to the police reports. The reports have since been taken down, but Bender describes them earlier in the thread.
Nothing about a broken nose or his head being bashed into the concrete. Which were the claims made.
It must take quite a bit of effort to ignore all of the evidence that doesn't fit your theory that is based upon no evidence. Oh, except your "reasons."
You presented no evidence. I hope you are not a lawyer.
The more we link, the worse it gets for you.
Nobody is linking. Including you. LOL
Garage, care to address my link? Or will you continue to lie?
That's what I get for snark!
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf
Presumably then, Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head and nose because....?
That's right, your "reasons."
SDN, the evidence has been out there for quite awhile, and Garage is well aware of it. He chooses to ignore it. He has his reasons, but my guess is that they will unnecessarily complicate his world view.q
SDN, the evidence has been out there for quite awhile, and Garage is well aware of it
As I said in the old thread, I think Zimmerman and his father are lying, in part, or in whole, on what happened that evening.
As I also said in that thread, you're free to disagree. Welcome to the internet.
"Their first prioprity is to secure the scene, and that means the evidence on Z as well"
NO, actually the first priority is to administer first aid.
I assume you didn't see the photo linked by SDN? That is evidence. Eyewitness testimony from the paramedics and the police officers is also evidence.
Did you see the police report in the link? Statements from eyewitnesses? Eyewitness testimony from neighbors. Any documents or evidence tends to support Zimmerman. Rants and speculation from the left are all the left has to hold on to their precious dream that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton remain relevant in this case.
Garage and leslyn write grammatical sentences, They must have some intelligence. One senses that their private lives are not wastelands of malignity, yet there's this....Think of all the politically or racially charged trals we've had during the past fifty years. Look at the evidence that was demanded in order to convict in those trials. Look at the evidence they have against Zimmerman. Can anyone honestly say that there is more evidence against Zimmerman than there is against Mumia or Ray Lewis?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा