That’s the title of the article. And, according to the article, yes, that’s what the ruling said.
Lawyers for the governor countered that Walker did not technically become a candidate until April 9, 2012, and therefore his behavior before that date did not violate laws pertaining to the campaign.
The state’s supreme court sided with the governor by a vote of 4-2, with Justice Michael Gableman writing that “the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law.”
Gableman wrote that a portion of Wisconsin’s election laws are “unconstitutionally overbroad and vague,” upholding a lower court judge’s decision that** no laws were violated**, despite the unsettled issue of whether or not the governor’s campaign and the outside group collaborated.
That justices ruled on a case where parties involved had given them eight million dollars of campaign support, and ruled in a way that was favorable to those parties.
The case was about where to draw the line between advocacy advertising and campaign support. Justices who benefited from advocacy advertising from the exact groups that were involved in this case might not be the best people to rule on this matter.
When a case involving a group involved in advocacy advertising that benefited the liberal justices comes before this court, we’ll see if they recuse themselves.
Ain’t necessarily so. Suppose somebody gets a reputation as a “strict constructionist”, a firm champion of the Way Things Are, or, better still, how they used to be. When the Club for Gross starts shopping around, that’s who they’re going to be looking for. Sure, they might pick somebody who is actually connected to them, but there are clear advantages to picking someone reliable without overt ties. Case in point.
I strongly suspect you are right, I even think you are right. Can’t prove it. Being eager to please is not quite the same as operating under instruction.
Judges who were disadvantaged by the advertising wouldn’t be the best people to rule on the matter either, since they are equally likely to be biased. So the liberal justice’s votes are just as suspect as any other.
If I understand you correctly, you are basing your position on this -
The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is an advocacy group, but it has not explictily endorsed any candidates. Nonetheless, they are engaging in issue advocacy, as is their right under the Constitution. By your logic, no judge who agrees with them on the issues can rule on a case that deals with those issues. Nor can a judge who disagrees with them.
If an advocacy group makes public its position on an issue, and a justice cannot rule on that issue if he agrees or disagrees with the position, I don’t see how we can have a court. I suppose the justices could be appointed for life, but Prosser was appointed in 1998, and I doubt if the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign would be any happier had he not been subject to re-election.
Do you think the liberal justice’s votes are suspect?
All I have said is that something smells fishy here. If you think any of the justice’s were biased, then I assume you agree.
Then there’s Caperton v. Massey. From Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, “We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias — based on objective and reasonable perceptions — when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.”
I was applying the logic of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. I don’t think the votes of the liberals **or **the conservatives were suspect, but they do.
Here’s an article in the Wisconsin State Journal that presents both sides. Your posts seem to be agreement with the position of Rick Esenberg. While I agree with Tara Malloy.
I think there’s a pretty obvious appearance of impropriety here whether or not actual impropriety occurred.
That part about destroying all the evidence kinda bothers me. WTF does that actually mean? If they checked a record or looked at a cashed check, and entered the fact into their evidence, surely they are not expected to destroy the actual check? I don’t get it.
Do you agree that both the liberal and conservative justices appear equally improper? It would appear that both sides could have been influenced.
If I spend a million dollars to get you elected, perhaps you own me a favor. If I spend a million dollars to get your opponent elected, perhaps you owe me a grudge, especially in a close election.