Wisconsin Supreme Court – Page 24 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Accurate & Balanced Reporting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Post author:Daniel Suhr
Post published:December 17, 2009
Post category:Wisconsin Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has received a fair bit of coverage from the news and editorial desks of the state’s media outlets over the past five years. Sometimes the editorial writers have criticized particular decisions in cases, sometimes particular campaign statements, and sometimes the overall structure of the court. This morning’s news story by the Madison Capital Times is the latest to decry the course of the court:

[W]hat’s certain is that the political divisions in the court, once kept behind closed doors, are now on public display. Until recently, one could hardly imagine a public meeting where one justice would accuse the chief justice of posing for ‘holy pictures,’ then addressing her as ‘kiddo,’ while another rudely dismisses a colleague’s argument as ‘ridiculous.’ ‘It’s a shame because they’re just acting like schoolchildren,’ former Justice William Bablitch says.

It’s a shame that people have such short memories, and that the Capital Times story was written in an utterly one-sided way.

The Wages of Speech

Post author:Richard M. Esenberg
Post published:December 10, 2009
Post category:First Amendment Judges & Judicial Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

Apparently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is not the only one sharply divided on an array of issues and fighting over questions of recusal. In Michigan, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to require that individual justices who have denied a motion to recuse themselves explain the reason in writing and to permit the Court to overrule the refusal to step aside. A Detroit Free Press columnist says that the Michigan court has been characterized by “back-biting, name-calling and playground-level cruelty” and adoption of the rule did draw sharply worded dissents. Sound familar?

Locally, there appears to be a concerted effort (spurred, in part, by an internal memo circulated within the State Public Defender’s office) to seek the recusal of Justice Michael Gableman in a number of criminal cases because he has allegedly expressed a general bias against criminal defendants. Justice Gableman has refused to step aside (the rationale for the motions would apply in every criminal case), and it is unclear whether the Court can compel him to do so.

I think the controversy raises some interesting questions about the interaction between campaign speech and recusal. I am writing a paper on the topic and thought I’d test drive a few of the arguments here as applied to our local controversy.

Memo To The New Justices: That’s Not How We Do Things On The Court

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:November 25, 2009
Post category:Business Regulation Judges & Judicial Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

At last month’s Conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the panel discussing the Court’s business law cases during the 2008-2009 term began with an observation and a question. The panel noted that there were three business law cases in which the votes of the Justices split on a 5-2 basis. These cases were Farmer’s Automobile Ins. Assn. v. Union Pacific Ry., 2009 WI 73; Krier v. Vilione, 2009 WI 45; and Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76. The question our panel asked was “Is this 5-2 split just a coincidence, or is something else going on?”

I cannot speak for my co-panelists, Tom Shriner and Leonard Leverson, and these comments should not be interpreted to reflect their views. However, I have concluded that, taken together, the three dissents filed by Justices Abrahamson and Bradley in the aforementioned cases can be read as an clear admonishment to their two newest colleagues on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The message that comes through to me, loud and clear, is one of disapproval of Justices Ziegler and Gableman for failing to adhere to the unwritten standards of professionalism that apply to the highest court in the State. It’s as if these two members of the “old guard” feel it necessary to remind their colleagues that they now sit on a Supreme Court, and that there are certain things that one just doesn’t do as a Supreme Court Justice. That the concerns of the dissenters have arisen in the context of three cases involving business law disputes is nothing more than a coincidence.