Thursday, March 20, 2014

Walkergate: Justice Bradley Recuses Herself - Will Others Follow?

It was reported on Wednesday that Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has recused herself from hearing the challenges to the ongoing Walkergate investigations:
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley on Wednesday recused herself from hearing a request from unnamed petitioners to stop the John Doe investigation into recall campaign fundraising because their attorney practices with her son.


Bradley wrote that while she believes she could fairly hear the matter, and she does not believe judicial rules require recusal, she finds it necessary to prevent even the appearance of impartiality.

"This court has been subject to extensive criticism for its recusal rules and practices," she wrote. "Weak recusal rules and lapses in recusal practices undermine the public trust and confidence in a fair and impartial judiciary."
Via the Wheeler Report, here is a copy of Bradley's letter.

I commend Justice Bradley for taking the high road and avoiding any sense of impartiality or conflict.

The question now is whether Justices Annette Ziegler, David Prosser, Michael Gableman and Patrica Roggensack will recuse themeselves.

One of the plaintiffs is Eric O'Keefe, the head for the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which worked actively to get each of these justices elected.  If these four don't recuse themselves due to this obvious conflict of interest, you know the whole thing is rigged.


  1. Annette Ziegler, David Prosser, Michael Gableman and Patrica Crooks have major obligations to the targets of John Doe II because of the financial support given to them for their elections, so there is no way they will recuse themselves. The only morality these judges have is that once they are bought, they stay bought.

    All of you should stop calling this state "Wississippi" and start calling it "North Illinois."

    1. Patience Roggensack, you mean?

    2. Capper, "Crooks" was correct even if that is not her last name.

  2. If the WMC judges don't step aside, the recall petitions should be filed the next day. And that should be made loud and clear to these folks

  3. My first thought was, "Oh no!" My next one was, "Interesting move, Ann Walsh Bradley." We will see what we will see.

  4. No downside in trying; the deck is already stacked in favor of the WMC wing of the court. At least, thanks to Bradley, they're now exposed. She doesn't want even the appearance of a conflict to further diminish the court. I'm betting the rest of them will be quite willing to further diminish it.

  5. Note the spin---This was also reposted on RightWisconsin, Charlie's "news" site.

  6. Lots of unanswered questions about the proceedings of John Doe 2.
    For a good article regarding the ethics of recusal see:
    The State Court of Appeals in January unanimously shot down their case to stop JD2. The "original action" case--going directly to the Supreme Court--was filed under seal on Feb. 7, although it's essentially the same case as the previous. Original action cases are rarely taken on by Supreme Courts. On Feb. 11, the the Court issued its first order in the case, but sealed its ruling from the public. This is a very unusual move.

    And, where is the money coming to pay for the likes of David Rivkin in all these lawsuits? The public needs to know.