Will Justice David Prosser try to strangle another member of the Court as tensions mount over collective bargaining?
Will Michael Gableman feel any sense of shame and remorse for his actions which leads to the story today out of Dane County? Will Gableman, who I contend is more intellectually comfortable with crayons than legal briefs, even feel a tinge of guilt for being on the Supreme Court, and well above his capabilities as a person?
So many questions.
This is a most remarkable story, and one that has huge ramifications for the state and the political environment. As with almost every other turn this year that has created all sorts of political chaos, this latest episode in Wisconsin again demonstrates the GOP is the root cause of the problems.
If the Republicans would just accept a fair and ethical way to proceed with the conduct of their offices, be it on the Supreme Court or in the Governor’s Office, these matters would never have happened.
I made it clear how I felt about the latest ethical problems with Gableman, and that there was reason for concern with his actions.
But due to greedy power plays, and over-reaches Wisconsin is once more in the midst of chaos over the collective bargaining bill.
The Dane County district attorney is considering asking the state Supreme Court to reopen his case over collective bargaining legislation without Justice Michael Gableman after learning that Gableman received two years of free legal service from an attorney involved in the case.
“We’re taking a hard look at it,” District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said Thursday. “I don’t think we have all the facts, but the ones we do have are concerning.”
Ozanne, a Democrat, said he would make a decision on what to do quickly, but declined to provide a more specific time frame.
The law firm Michael Best & Friedrich recently disclosed Gableman did not pay for legal work the firm did for him from July 2008 to July 2010 as Gableman fought an ethics charge. They had a deal that said the firm would get paid only if Gableman prevailed in the ethics case and was able to persuade the state to pay his attorney fees.
The Supreme Court split 3-3 last year on the ethics charge. That meant Gableman was not found to have violated the ethics code, but because he did not win he was prevented from asking for legal fees from the state.