Friday, April 13, 2012

WI Supreme Court Justices Themselves Decide On Recusals, But...

...David Prosser wants to force Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to recuse themselves from deliberations in his ethics complaint case because they were witnesses to some of the events in the case.

Two things: Oher Justices sympathetic to Prosser's side of events were also witnesses, but Prosser isn't demanding their recusals.

This might be an oversight on Prosser's part, a double-standard or flat-out attempt to stack the jury. 

And if only a Justice can remove him or herself from a case, how can the alleged Justice Grabby make them step aside?

Lawyers out there? Explanations?

3 comments:

Paul Trotter said...

Is there an answer to this?

Sounds like it's dead on arrival.

Maybe one set of bowels will react to the stress of all this and take another leave.

Jim Bouman said...

This man has all the dignity and probity of an exploding cigar.

Raven said...

Very simply, Prosser isn't Chief Justice, he's just SuperJustice, faster than a speeding gavel, empowered with Special Rightness which entitles him to Special Rights and Privileges no-one (save his partner Gavel-Man) can ever hope to achieve....

* Extra votes from an emptied ballot-box!
* Immunity from impeachment!
* The power to enforce recusals on other judges that can't be enforced on him! (He can vote on his own ethics complaint, can't he?)