Gableman’s bias is showing

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

buy this photo Judge Michael Gableman Steve Apps

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman proved with his crass and cowardly 2008 campaign that he has no shame.

But he does not want anyone to forget that fact.

So, despite credible calls for his recusal, Gableman participated in arguments on a case where his bias has already been well established. The case involves the issue of sentencing credits for criminal defendants. Assistant State Public Defender Ellen Henak has asked Gableman to recuse himself because of comments he made in his campaign -- and in the course of an ethics inquiry that has targeted him - that evidenced a steady bias against criminal defendants.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks took the complaint -- and the controversies surrounding Gableman -- seriously enough to enter a statement in the court record that suggested the argument should be postponed until the court decides how to address the motions regarding Gableman.

That exposed a division on the court, with Justices David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler complaining that Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks were to blame for delaying decisions about how to deal with Gableman.

Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler are playing politics.

The trio can form a court majority if they have Gableman in their caucus and so they seem to be willing to neglect not just the complaints about Gableman but the requirement that they be addressed in a judicious and responsible manner.

We understand that Ziegler, who has had her own ethics problems, is not inclined to seek or support a higher standard.

But we are deeply disappointed in Prosser and Roggensack.

They know Gableman presents a problem for the court and that the problem must be addressed. Yet, by siding with Ziegler on this issue, they have made internal court politics a higher priority than the court's reputation as an venue where justice is the primary pursuit.

As seasoned jurists who have historically taken ethics issues seriously, Prosser and Roggensack should not be playing this sort of game.

Print Email