Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman’s attorney, James Bopp Jr., claims that a panel’s recommendation to the state’s high court to drop an ethics complaint against the scandal-plagued justice was a “complete vindication.”

Exactly what fantasy world is Bopp living in?

The three-judge panel reviewed charges that Gableman had violated the state judicial code by falsely claiming that his opponent in the 2008 state Supreme Court race, former Justice Louis Butler, had helped free a rapist.

The racially charged television ads of the Gableman campaign were broadly -- and appropriately -- seen as offensive, and the three-judge panel did not disagree with that view.

Rather, the panel determined that Gableman and his campaign had engaged in what is referred to as “protected free speech.”

What that means is that, under a broad reading of the Constitution, Americans -- and especially candidates for public office -- have a right to say things that are offensive and of dubious validity.

This is as it should be. Political debates must be freewheeling and candidates must have space to make bold statements -- even if they are wrong.

But the notion that Gableman had to hide under the cover of free-speech protections rather than claim that his statements were true and honorable argues against any claim that he has been completely vindicated,

In fact, he remains exactly what he has always been: an embarrassment to the state’s highest court in particular and to the judiciary in general.

Login to post your comment. If you don't have an account, you may register for one.