WI Supreme Court again earns Ethical Laughingstock Prize
|Justice Michael Gableman|
You may remember that the right-wing, corporately-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court's conservative majority let major conservative donors write a code of conduct rule that allowed a justice to remain on a case even if a party had given the justice a campaign donation - - a no-recusal-needed self-inflicted wound to the Court's reputation and effectiveness.
For which one report gave the Wisconsin Supreme Court an "F" for ethics.
Today we have a fresh example of special interest donors - - this time, gun lobbies - - having donated heavily to Justice Michael Gableman who, thanks to that Laughingstock Rule, has not removed himself from hearing a gun 'rights' case.
Thanks to Wisconsin Democracy Campaign for performing watchdog duty:
When Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments last Friday in a case against the city of Madison’s gun ban on city buses, one of the justices was in a compromised position. Michael Gableman, who did not recuse himself in the case, had received nearly $76,000 in outside campaign support and contributions from pro-gun groups.
Wisconsin Concealed Carry, which brought the case in 2014, argued that the state’s 2011 concealed carry law prevents the city from enforcing the bus gun ban. The group appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court after rulings by a circuit court and a state appeals court last year sided with the city.
Five of the court’s seven members are conservatives, including Gableman, who received nearly $73,500 outside election support from the NRA’s state political action committee (PAC) during his 2008 campaign for a seat on the bench.
In addition, Gableman received a $1,000 contribution from the NRA PAC and a $1,500 contribution from the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Movement PAC during his 2008 campaign. Gableman faces reelection in 2018.
As Roundy used to say, "What more could be fairer?"
It is absolutely frightening how many judges, state legislators and governors are owned by the Koch brothers political network or another group of special interest donors. Corporate special interest influence especially through the Koch network is equal to or greater than either political party. Two unelected billionaires can control the fate of 300 million Americans. We should be very concerned.
Worse, there are many who argue that that is the right and natural order of things because those two unelected billionaires have more inherited wealth than 300 million Americans. Didn't we once fight a revolution to get rid of that kind of government?
Post a Comment