Journal Sentinel editorial board botches Court recusal argument

[Updated, 11:48 a.m.] The Journal Sentinel editorial board argues there is nothing positive to be gained by recusals over potential conflicts-of-interest facing the State Supreme Court majority which has accepted millions of dollars in campaign contributions from some of the same groups whose donations routed to the 2012 Walker recall campaign are at the heart of the John Doe probe case into potentially illegal campaigning that is heading for State Supreme Court consideration:

For better or worse, this is the court Wisconsin has, and this court needs to decide cases, including these. Recusals could paralyze it.

I disagree. When did it become OK for justice to lose that blindfold?

Let the majority be pressured to acknowledge their conflicts-of-interest - - including the fact that some of the big-dollar conservative groups also wrote the 'no-recusal' code of conduct which gives the Justices an out - - but which the newspaper did not add to its list of ethical problems facing the Court.

Let the Justices and their backers and donors and enablers stew in it.

And if the court majority won't budge, if it takes the case, the newspaper should loudly demand the majority's recusal or their resignations.

We'd expect no less from the majority on a local village board of trustees about to going to vote on a controversial development after having taken huge amounts of money from the developer for their winning campaigns.

No one would say that level of failed impartiality was fair or smart or ethical or right or protective of the larger public interest. 

And we would expect the newspaper to condemn, not excuse or rationalize it.

"For better or worse?" Come on.

The newspaper a few days ago said the appearance of a conflict of interest in a case handled by the office of Jefferson County DA Susan Happ, and widely politicized by her GOP opponents as she runs for Attorney General, was a problem that Happ should have avoided by deferring to an outside prosecutor.

So recusal/withdrawal is the prescribed solution for Happ, but not for the hapless majority on the State Supreme Court - - our most senior arbiters - - in what is arguably is its biggest case in years, decades, maybe?

The same court which the newspaper's editorial says "faces serious conflicts of its own."

Are the standards of fair review recommended by the newspaper so flexible, so inconsistent? A line is drawn in Jefferson County but not across the Capitol on behalf of the entire state?

Let the majority of the justices take the heat for what ever angst or paralysis or embarrassment or vilification from voters which might come in the wake of refusals, or their recusals - - which would not be fatal to the case.

A conflicted state supreme court can decline to make the ruling and let an appeals court make the final ruling by declining to accept the case, since that's where the it sits now.

Let the citizens of the state watch the charade play out. Let everyone see the power of special interest money. Let a disgusted electorate take note and take charge - - and let the state's largest newspapers help set the tone as part of their traditional mission to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.

The State Supreme Court majority put itself in this position by a) taking the big bucks, b) letting the fox dictate the rules in the hen house, c) and behaving like an automatic arm of the Walker campaign and GOP machine when reflexively approving Act 10 and voter ID - - thus making the John Doe decision look like a done-deal for Walker and the donors which they and the Governor share.

A done deal that could further do in the Court's standing and state's reputation.

The Journal Sentinel should argue first for transparent judicial ethics and simple, unequivocal fairness, and not spend its time on arguments that help justices off the petard of their own injudicious choosing.

The court's majority took all the chips that came its way, so let them fall where they may.