Not yet. Where do I go? Who should I vote for? What time do the polls close? How long does it take? Do I have to show a photo ID? Or can I just show them my birth certificate? Do they take credit cards? Thanks in advance.
To this day, the Chief Justice and I continue to lock ourselves inside our private offices when working alone because of concerns for our physical safety due to Justice Prosser’s behavior.That speaks to the state of mind of the Justices who are locking their doors, but what is the ongoing reality? If nothing more has happened, isn't it time now to de-escalate the drama?
It was reported recently that when asked about how the court is operating, Justice Roggensack responded ‘We are doing just fine’ and that ‘we are working very well together.Coincidentally, Justice Roggensack is up for reelection:
A Feb. 19 primary will pare the race to two candidates. The general election is April 2.
Last week Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson released a letter to John Dawson telling him that the court, would not be not re-appointing him to the commission. The letter, signed by Abrahamson and the other two so-called “liberals” on the court, expressed regret at the decision by the conservative majority.
John Dawson, the chairman of the commission, has served on the panel since 2006. With his removal, the panel will be scrubbed of all commissioners who filed ethical complaints against Prosser and two other sitting conservative justices over the past four years.
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.
Appeals courts sent two lawsuits challenging Wisconsin's blocked new voter ID law directly to the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, determining it was imperative to resolve the cases quickly given the slate of important upcoming elections, including the state's presidential primaries next week.A decision before next Tuesday's primaries? Assuming a majority of the court will uphold the new law, I find it hard to believe the minority won't at least have some power to slow the case down. But, on the other hand, you have a trial court enjoining an important new state law, interfering with an impending election, why should that be allowed to happen, if the law is, in fact, valid?
If the Supreme Court agrees to take the cases, it could reinstate the state's new requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls just days before Tuesday's election. However, attorneys challenging the law said it is unlikely a decision would come that quickly.
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.
"As far as I'm concerned, I don't think I have anything to hide here," Prosser said. "I don't know who made the complaints. I don't know what their (commission members') votes were. I don't know if it was a unanimous vote or not a unanimous vote."...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.
Prosser... charged that the Judicial Commission's makeup is inherently biased because five of the nine members are appointed by the sitting governor, who is a partisan.
In his case, at least some of those who participated in discussion about the ethics charges against Prosser, a former Republican speaker of the Assembly, were appointees of former Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.
The commission's executive director, James Alexander, declined to say which members participated in the decision or decisions to seek discipline against Prosser or how they voted....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.
Under the law, confidentiality can only be waived in writing by the judge facing discipline. Prosser said he will confer with his attorneys, Keven Reak and Gregg Gunta of Wauwatosa, to decide whether to ask the commission to open up its records. He said he testified before seven of the nine commission members on Sept. 23 for three hours, and for another hour in front of six members on Dec. 16, but was not present for any votes.
"The truth of the matter was, they were not interested in what my defense was or any provocation for my action," Prosser said. "They were only interested in my conduct."
Prosser issued a statement Friday criticizing the Judicial Commission's complaint, suggesting it is politically motivated. He said the commission is "trying to accomplish through this prosecution what some of its members failed to achieve at the ballot box."We've talked about this incident many times on this blog:
"The charges filed by the Judicial Commission are partisan, unreasonable, and largely untrue," Prosser said in a statement. "They will be vigorously contested because I am innocent."...
"This is not about whether Justice Prosser is a good or bad guy," said Franklyn Gimbel, a prominent Milwaukee lawyer who was hired as special prosecutor by the Judicial Commission for this case. "This is not about whether Justice Prosser is a good or bad judge. This is not about his judicial philosophies. It is about whether or not his behavior on June 13, 2011, was violative of the ethical requirements for a judge."
Also, it’s possible that some of [Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson’s colleagues have had problems taking directions from a woman, says Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law School professor whose work focuses on gender, law and public policy. She notes that many studies suggest women in leadership positions face trade-offs that men don’t.Speaking of things that are "possible"... it's possible to say something more generic about the relations between men and women in the workplace.
“What’s assertive in a man is abrasive in a woman,” Rhode says, mentioning a report on women in leadership roles by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that focuses on expanding opportunities for women in business. It surveyed female executives, and many of them attributed some of their success to finding a management style that made men feel comfortable.
“You have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. Sometimes people don’t know when to walk away... Because everybody is a sovereign state... sometimes you have to push hard, because some justices can be bullies. But that doesn’t mean you choke anyone or push anyone out the window.”Noted.
:.
