Gableman recuses himself from Prosser discipline case

2012-08-11T10:30:00Z 2012-09-04T19:10:11Z Gableman recuses himself from Prosser discipline caseThe Associated Press The Associated Press
August 11, 2012 10:30 am  • 

A third Wisconsin Supreme Court justice has recused himself from the ethics case against fellow Justice David Prosser, casting doubt on whether the high court will ever hear the case.

Justice Michael Gableman’s recusal today leaves the court without a quorum to hear the disciplinary case against Prosser.

He joins justices Annette Ziegler and Pat Roggensack in saying he would not take part in considering a March complaint against Prosser by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

The commission has accused Prosser of violating judicial ethics when he put his hands on the neck of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley during an argument in front of four other justices last year.

Prosser said the contact happened by reflex as Bradley charged at him.

With the three recusals, plus Prosser, only three justices of the seven-member court — not enough for a quorum — are left to hear the commission’s complaint.

Normally, such a panel hears judicial ethics cases to determine the facts and makes recommendations on any discipline to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then makes the final ruling and issues any punishment.

Prosser has contended none of his fellow justices can hear the case because they are witnesses or biased against him.

Milwaukee lawyer Franklyn Gimbel, the special prosecutor in the case, contends that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has the authority to send the case to be heard by a special panel of three appeals court judges.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(23) Comments

  1. Farmdog
    Report Abuse
    Farmdog - August 11, 2012 10:05 pm
    Wrong. I am a lawyer and have been so for 30 years. They were not all present in fact. Party politics in front of the law--PUUUUHHHHLEASE! Just read Prosser's opinion on Act 10. The open records law was very clear and he just ignored it. That was politics in front of the law.
  2. srwspoon
    Report Abuse
    srwspoon - August 11, 2012 9:59 pm
    array1,
    You're just a broken record spewing trash. I hope you sleep well at night knowing full well how dishonest you are.
  3. array1
    Report Abuse
    array1 - August 11, 2012 8:37 pm
    Why else but to choke or strangle would Prosser have grabbed that woman by the neck??

    Prosser 101;
    An enraged justice David Prosser grabbed the woman's neck with both hands so that he could:
    a) Greet her good morning
    b) Massage her neck
    c) Strangle her
    d) Both a and c

    Answer = c Strangle (choke is also acceptable)


  4. srwspoon
    Report Abuse
    srwspoon - August 11, 2012 7:35 pm
    Page 17 of 70 in the police report... (see link below)
    6/29/2011 Detective S. Sims
    INTERVIEW WITH JUSTICE ANN WALSH BRADLEY

    Quote

    "...Justice Bradley did not recall Justice Prosser squeezing or applying pressure around her neck."

    End Quote

    Read the entire police report for yourself, Prosser did not choke Bradley.

    http://host.madison.com/supreme-court-case-police-reports---police-interviews/pdf_4c314d8a-cff8-11e0-b72d-001cc4c03286.html

    If someone is choked they WILL recall it in great detail, period!

    If you want to continue this blatant smearing lie then you must consider the fact that you are also smearing Justice Bradley because she obviously did not have the good sense and sound judgment to be able to determine if she was being strangled or not.

    I know, I know, you don't have to keep reminding me; real truth and facts are simply not your goal.
  5. srwspoon
    Report Abuse
    srwspoon - August 11, 2012 7:04 pm
    Are you still spreading your strangling LIES!!!!!!!!!!

    You truly are nothing but a lying political hack.

    POLITICAL HACK : is a negative term ascribed to a person who is part of the political apparatus and whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.
  6. gfunk
    Report Abuse
    gfunk - August 11, 2012 5:16 pm
    And you have no more of a law school education than I do. So what makes you so sure that each individual justice had varying levels of conflicts of interest. As reported, weren't they all present when this occurred. All but 1 I believe. If they were all present and that is the justification for recusal, then they should all be recusing themselves. Either that or being present is an excuse to overlook "my parties" wrong doings.

    As I stated I don't know which is right or wrong, but it seems *highly unlikely* that all the conservatives were justified in recusing themselves and none of the liberals were. One way or another members of the justices are putting party politics in front of the law and that is wrong to *anyone* doing it.
  7. array1
    Report Abuse
    array1 - August 11, 2012 1:20 pm
    "hand wringing" Nice one!
  8. Good Gosh
    Report Abuse
    Good Gosh - August 11, 2012 12:57 pm
    She was probably taking her cue from Gableman, who refused to recuse himself in that case where HE was being charged with an ethics violation. Probably seemed like the thing to do!
  9. Wally Kalbacken
    Report Abuse
    Wally Kalbacken - August 11, 2012 12:14 pm
    Game over!
  10. array1
    Report Abuse
    array1 - August 11, 2012 9:30 am
    You're thinking of the taliban, where the victim is punished as in a rape. In modern society lynne, most people support punishment of the one who actually commits the crime as in the case of a justice strangling a woman.
  11. Monitor
    Report Abuse
    Monitor - August 11, 2012 9:27 am
    Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce had most likely again notified some of their puppet supreme court justices (Gableman and Ziegler) to recuse themselves. A small reminder to them that they (WMC) owns them, and they are there to obey their commands. So the outcome of recusals makes sense.
  12. TheJudoon
    Report Abuse
    TheJudoon - August 11, 2012 8:53 am
    I thought Gableman didn't believe in recusing himself?
  13. Farmdog
    Report Abuse
    Farmdog - August 11, 2012 8:46 am
    I don't think that physical fighting among Supreme Court justices over when to issue an opinion on perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation in our state's history is frivolous. Nor is it frivolous to claim that a justice "put his hands on the neck" of another justice while discussing any other issue. The integrity of of that institution is what is at stake and that is ot trivial.
  14. Farmdog
    Report Abuse
    Farmdog - August 11, 2012 8:37 am
    Thanks for your black and white, all or none thinking. Too bad it is not correct. Not all the justices were witnesses. They may each have biases but that does not amount to a conflict of interest. Would you also mind telling us where you went to law school such that you are qualified to give a legal opinion on this? You say you would do a better job of upholding the law, but since you are not a lawyer, how would you even know what the law is on this particular subject?
  15. JAFO
    Report Abuse
    JAFO - August 11, 2012 8:23 am
    It's the first time Mad Dog Mike has recused himself from anything! Sounds pretty fishy to me.
  16. busrider
    Report Abuse
    busrider - August 11, 2012 7:44 am
    To those who have been using hyperbole and misdirection while throwing (****) at any and all who would disagree:

    You are at fault .
    The government you have emulated in your thuggishness is the one you now have.
    Do not blame the mirror for it only reflects your image.
  17. retired
    Report Abuse
    retired - August 11, 2012 7:13 am
    If it wasn't the democrats last Feb., now it's these justices, what a joke. Talk about recalls, get rid of all of them, starting with Prosser !!
    For once, your recalls would be unanious in this state.
  18. Lionhear
    Report Abuse
    Lionhear - August 11, 2012 7:03 am
    How could Bradley still not have recused herself from an ethics case in which she was a major player? How arrogant!
  19. powmda
    Report Abuse
    powmda - August 11, 2012 6:54 am
    The Left's plan to unravel the conservative block of the Supreme Court just keeps failing! More hand wringing and tear shedding in the Madison area Starbucks!!
  20. Universalcare
    Report Abuse
    Universalcare - August 10, 2012 11:21 pm
    Abrahamson needs to send this to the three judge panel. There has to be some accountability. If not, what's the point of having a supreme court. Is this still the USA?!!
  21. gfunk
    Report Abuse
    gfunk - August 10, 2012 10:40 pm
    Which is worse? The fact that none of the liberal justices have recused themselves or the fact that all of the conservative justices have recused themselves???

    Either recusal is the right thing or the wrong thing to do based on the law, there is no middle ground, so either all the justices should have recused themselves or none of them. The fact that it took so long to recuse themselves, makes me think that the right thing to do is to not recuse themselves, but I am no supreme court justice or legal scholar so I have no idea. Based on what is happening, I would probably do a better job upholding the law than this phony group of so-called justices.

    From the outside looking in, this appears to have nothing to do with the law that the justices (both conservative and liberal) have sworn to uphold.
  22. Lynne4300
    Report Abuse
    Lynne4300 - August 10, 2012 9:14 pm
    Well, I am sure in about a week, they will come up with another frivolous claim.
    Time for ALL the justices to be held accountable, and on the same level. No more double standards.
  23. whatistruth
    Report Abuse
    whatistruth - August 10, 2012 8:58 pm
    Another one of those late on Friday announcements.

    What a shocking surprise, NOT!

    Just a way for all of his co-ideologues to support the twit without having to deal with the real issue... a total disgrace on the institution. The foursome are the best judges money can buy. Some honor!

We provide a valuable forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. But there are rules: Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

What's hot

Featured businesses

You might also like
×