Thursday, May 29, 2008

Raising The Bar- One Misbehaving Judge At A Time

Fred was attempting to take me to task in one of his comment threads yesterday. We were talking about Mike Gableman's lack of qualifications for SCoWI and he said.
I am so sick of you and your liberal buddies supposedly so tolerant throwing
works like hack, unqualified, Deke suggested he took his bar exam with a
crayon.

I just wanted to say that he can't possibly be more sick of hearing it than we are of trying to warn him about it.
The discipline stems from Ziegler's acknowledgement that while serving as a
circuit judge, she presided over nearly a dozen cases in which she had a
conflict of interest. Ziegler was elected to a 10-year term on the court in
April 2007, about a month after the conflict of interest involving West Bend
Savings Bank was revealed.

Even Ziegler acknowledges the wrongdoing. Other folks can argue about the severity of her reprimand. The stink is there and there it will stay. We tried to warn you that your candidate wasn't clean but you wouldn't listen.

Mike McCabe, as expected thought the reprimand was too lenient.
"They obviously leaned very heavily on past precedent, which I find bizarre
since this is the first time the court has had to discipline a sitting Supreme
Court justice," he said."They obviously leaned very heavily on past precedent,
which I find bizarre since this is the first time the court has had to
discipline a sitting Supreme Court justice," he said.

The words he left out, of course, were, "So far."

4 comments:

Real Debate said...

Pay attention Jim you might learn something...

On Ziegler you and your liberal pals had one issue on these few cases. She should have recused herself. It should be noted though that no one on either side of any of these cases felt the judge was unfair in any way.

You and your leftie pals tried to slime her on a bunch of other cases that she never had anything to do with. Small claims issues that went through her clerk for processing.

In your zeal to find anything to attack a concservative jurist with you went too far, way too far, and you are still clinging to it.

Here is what you have; she should have recused herself from a few cases where she did not act inapprorpiately... I agree, that does not mean she is unethical though.

Oooo throw her in jail and toss away the key.

Next time you may want to just focus on the real cases and ignore all the other low hanging fruit.

And for the record, I did take you to task, you are just too wrapped in your own little world to understand it.

grumps said...

Fred, grab your dictionary and look up these words from the story.

Serious and significant

Willful

Knew or should have known

Inexcusable

Now, let's talk about what you're willing to put up with in a Justice. Your standards are evidently lower than mine. Your side won, Fred. You should be happy about that. Celebrate the victory of your mediocre candidate.

We can revisit this when Gableman gets his reprimand.

Oh, by the way. Didja see the big announcement on the Hamline Law School website? They've just been upgraded inthe rankings. They're now a Third Tier Law School.

http://law.hamline.edu/news/hamline_university_school_law_rises_prestigious_national_rankings_us_news_world_report_third_ti

John Foust said...

Gableman's got plenty of potential. This prayer breakfast, pro-creationist angle has got legs. I can't wait to see what happens.

Other Side said...

I can understand the error. It wasn't crayons. It was those new Crayola Color Changeables Markers. They're so cool. These markers have a special formula that allows conservative blockheads, er justices, to create facts out of thin air and then use a magic wand to make these misstatements disappear.

Fred uses crayons.