Judges & Judicial Process – Page 41 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Aharon Barak: A Judicial Approach Shaped by the Worst and Best in People

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:November 3, 2010
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process Speakers at Marquette

Aharon Barak is known internationally for his role in strengthening individual rights and the civil courts in Israel. The accomplishments and prestige of the retired chief judge of the Israeli Supreme Court are what made him a good choice for presenting this year’s Hallows Lecture at Marquette Law School.

But beyond the Hallows lecture on judicial philosophy Monday and beyond what Barak said to several classes and at meetings with faculty members and beyond his remarks Sunday night at a dinner attended by leaders of Milwaukee’s Jewish community, there lies a personal side to what it motivates Barak as a judge. It came out in spontaneous remarks at a private dinner Monday night after the Hallows lecture.

Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:September 17, 2010
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

One important, but perhaps underreported, development in our legal world is the work of the Legislature’s Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal. The committee grew out of a request from Justice Patrick Crooks for the legislature to consider amendments to statutes governing judicial discipline and disqualification. Both issues have been hot button items in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the wake of hotly contested and exceedingly well financed campaigns for seats on the Court in the 2007 and 2008 election cycles. The committee, consisting of legislators and public members, is charged with studying both issues and, if appropriate, make recommendations to the legislature.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of being one of nine invited guests to testify before the Committee. Four of the nine witnesses were sitting Justices on the Court – Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley, Crooks and Roggensack. The hearing can be viewed here. I am the last (or as I would prefer to say “clean up”) witness.

Yesterday’s hearing had to do with recusal although some of the speakers addressed matters of discipline, largely addressing issues concerning the deadlock in the Gableman matter and how that might be avoided in the future. Much of the discussion on recusal centered on whether the legislature should adopt an objective standard (presumably other than, as I pointed out, the one announced in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.), how that standard should be enforced and what it should be.

More to follow.

More Contention on the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:July 10, 2010
Post category:First Amendment Judges & Judicial Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

Last Thursday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court finally issued opinions on recusal rules that it adopted earlier in the term and which essentially say that a duty to recuse cannot be be based solely on the receipt of a lawful campaign contribution or a lawful independent expenditure made on a judge’s behalf. The Court also amended a preexisting rule to permit a judicial candidate’s campaign committee from soliciting funds from persons involved in proceedings in which the candidate, if elected or reelected, is likely to participate.

The majority opinion and dissent continue to reflect the sharp and bitted divisons on the Court. I wish that would get better.

I have an article on judicial recusal coming out in the Wake Forest Law Review, so it’s a subject that I have been thinking about. I have the following quick observations on the Court’s decision.