Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

[Rick]

No doubt the same one you did. I'm an alumnus as well.

Luckily for us, and for the democratic process, it will be judges familiar with Wisconsin laws who decide this case, not the members of HOP.

Yep, hopefully the case can be taken to another judge with at least some indication of impartiality.

 

[PLC1]

Yep, hopefully the case can be taken to another judge with at least some indication of impartiality.

perhaps even one that agrees with your biases.

 

[Rick]

perhaps even one that agrees with your biases.

Right - I want a judge whose son isn't a leftwing union activist, and that makes me biased.

 

[BigRob]

Right - I want a judge whose son isn't a leftwing union activist, and that makes me biased.

A person's impartiality cannot be judged based on the actions of their offspring.

I think the judge made the incorrect ruling, but I don't think who her son is had anything to do with it.

 

[Rick]

A person's impartiality cannot be judged based on the actions of their offspring.

I think the judge made the incorrect ruling, but I don't think who her son is had anything to do with it.

You don't >>KNOW<<, and judges have to avoid even the appearance of bias. When they recuse themselves, they aren't saying "Well shucks, I just can't handle this fairly" - they are removing even the possibility. And your cavalier dismissal of even the possibility in this case is just stupid - presumably she wants her son to succeed in his efforts.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You don't >>KNOW<<, and judges have to avoid even the appearance of bias. When they recuse themselves, they aren't saying "Well shucks, I just can't handle this fairly" - they are removing even the possibility. And your cavalier dismissal of even the possibility in this case is just stupid - presumably she wants her son to succeed in his efforts.

His efforts? I seem to recall the words Former being used alot when talking about his work.

Also Will you not say that you Think Clarance Thomas should not judge the Health care Bill if it comes to the SC?

Also you keep crying Bias, but yet you can't point out a single thing about why her ruling is wrong...I posted the law in question...try posting something fact based for a exciting change.

 

[BigRob]

You don't >>KNOW<<, and judges have to avoid even the appearance of bias. When they recuse themselves, they aren't saying "Well shucks, I just can't handle this fairly" - they are removing even the possibility. And your cavalier dismissal of even the possibility in this case is just stupid - presumably she wants her son to succeed in his efforts.

You are making too much of nothing...her son is a political consultant, and based on your basis for recusal she would be unable to hear any case with even a slightest hint of politics.

You are also missing that this is a state judge, and you are attempting to apply rules for the federal court to her, which is wrong.

Wisconsin Law states:

Section 757.19 (2), stats., provides that a judge must disqualify himself or herself from any civil or criminal action or proceeding when, among other things, he or she determines that, for any reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner. The Wisconsin supreme court has held that this provision is entirely a subjective determination made by the judge. When a judge’s refusal to disqualify himself or herself under this standard is made, the only question before a reviewing court is whether the record shows that the judge made this determination; there is no further investigation of the judge’s thought process and no consideration of what a reasonable person might believe. [See State v. Walberg, 109 Wis. 2d 96, 325 N.W.2d 687 (1983), cert. den. 106 U.S. 546, 474 S. Ct. 1013; and State v. American TV and Appliance of Madison, Inc., 151 Wis. 2d 175, 443 N.W.2d 662 (1989).]

In contrast to the subjective test for disqualification contained in s. 757.19 (2) (g), stats., the code of judicial conduct combines both a subjective and an objective test to determine whether a judge should recuse himself or herself. Generally, the code provision requires a judge to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding when: (1) the facts and circumstances the judge knows or reasonably should know establish a specified conflict; or (2) when reasonable, well−informed persons knowledgeable about judicial ethics standards and the justice system and aware of the facts and circumstances the judge knows or reasonably should know would reasonably question the judge’s ability to be impartial. [See s. SCR 60.04 (4).]

A critical difference between the operation of the code of judicial conduct and s. 757.19, stats., is that a violation of the code may result in some form of discipline through the judicial commission disciplinary process, while a violation of s. 757.19, stats., may result, in the absence of a waiver, in the replacement of a judge and may result in a determination that a proceeding is void and a referral to the judicial commission. Thus, a violation of the code’s recusal requirement based on an objective standard (when reasonable, well−informed persons ... question the judge’s ability to be impartial) might end with the imposition of discipline, but will not require that a judge be removed from a particular case or that an order be vacated. [See American TV, 443 N.W.2d at pp. 665−7, and State v. Carviou, 154 Wis. 2d 641, 454 N.W.2d 562, 563 (Ct. App. 1990), rev. den., 457 N.W.2d 325 (a violation of the code is not grounds for recusal under s. 757.19 (2), stats.).]

This SECTION, incorporating similar federal statutory language contained in 28 U.S.C. s. 455 (a), provides that a judge must disqualify himself or herself from any civil or criminal action or proceeding when his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the “purpose of [28 U.S.C. s. 455 (a)] is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible [and that] it is critically important ... to identify the facts that might reasonably cause an objective observer to question [a judge’s] impartiality.” [Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988).]

At most, the concept that a "reasonable" person would think there might be impartiality is all you have to argue on...and most reasonable people understand that the son is not the judge.

 

[Dr.Who]

Also you keep crying Bias, but yet you can't point out a single thing about why her ruling is wrong...I posted the law in question...try posting something fact based for a exciting change.

The arguments that will be made against her ruling are that the senate rules trump the open meeting rule and that the judge does not have jurisdiction over the senate rules.

If the senators believed that at the time that they voted then even if the law is found to have been passed illegally they will not be guilty of intentionally violating the law like the other senators did when they skipped town. If the law is struck down they they might just schedule the vote 24 hours in advance then vote it in. I personally think that woujd be best either way.

Meanwhile the budget was supposed to be done by a certain date and that date has passed (which is justification for there not being a 24 hour rule) which will cost Wisconsin a lot of money. If the court later rules with those who passed the law then the blame for the lost money will fall squarely on those who brought the suit. If not then the blame will fall on those who delayed the vote by skipping town.

 

[Rick]

You are making too much of nothing...her son is a political consultant

Her son is a consultant for SEIU - the most rabid, radicalized leftwing union in america - the union that eg provided the thugs to surround the homes of AIG executives and terrorize their families.

most reasonable people understand that the son is not the judge.

The judge has to BE her son in order to be biased in his favor? Yaaaaa surrre.

 

[BigRob]

Her son is a consultant for SEIU - the most rabid, radicalized leftwing union in america - the union that eg provided the thugs to surround the homes of AIG executives and terrorize their families.




The judge has to BE her son in order to be biased in his favor? Yaaaaa surrre.

To follow your logic, no judge could ever rule on a politically charged case because they have an obvious bias, be it the party they ran under, or the party that appointed them.

Being related to someone, who is not even directly involved, is not grounds for recusal under Wisconsin state law it would seem.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Her son is a consultant for SEIU - the most rabid, radicalized leftwing union in america - the union that eg provided the thugs to surround the homes of AIG executives and terrorize their families.




The judge has to BE her son in order to be biased in his favor? Yaaaaa surrre.

so how many times are you going to ignore the question ...

do you think Judge Clarance Tomas should recuse himself when the Obama health care issue makes it to the SC?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The arguments that will be made against her ruling are that the senate rules trump the open meeting rule and that the judge does not have jurisdiction over the senate rules.

If the senators believed that at the time that they voted then even if the law is found to have been passed illegally they will not be guilty of intentionally violating the law like the other senators did when they skipped town. If the law is struck down they they might just schedule the vote 24 hours in advance then vote it in. I personally think that woujd be best either way.

Meanwhile the budget was supposed to be done by a certain date and that date has passed (which is justification for there not being a 24 hour rule) which will cost Wisconsin a lot of money. If the court later rules with those who passed the law then the blame for the lost money will fall squarely on those who brought the suit. If not then the blame will fall on those who delayed the vote by skipping town.

Just a guess... i think laws overtake rules.

And there is a reason for these laws...to give the people a chance to know what the bill is being voted on.

the justification of its past when the budget was due...well if it already was passed....what exactly was the penalty if having to wait 24 hours? nothing happened when it passed the time and nothing was going to happen if they did not pass it before 24 hours was up...Also please tell me how a bill with no financial parts in the bill ( as they where taken out to make the bill something they could vote on with less votes) is needed to pass a budget...It had zero impact on that budget. All the Budget issues...had already been agreed to...and then where pulled from the bill.

The Bill was forced threw, and they overlooked the rules to get it done...
Also please show me what law the Senators broke by not being at a vote...I think you will find there is none...

 

[Rick]

To follow your logic, no judge could ever rule on a politically charged case because they have an obvious bias, be it the party they ran under, or the party that appointed them.

That IS a problem, and unfortunately that is the state we've arrived at after 30 years of leftwing judges looking at a judgeship as not a solemn public trust, but an opportunity to write law without having been elected.

 

[BigRob]

That IS a problem, and unfortunately that is the state we've arrived at after 30 years of leftwing judges looking at a judgeship as not a solemn public trust, but an opportunity to write law without having been elected.

Do you have the same concerning regards to Republican appointed judges? Both sides can be corrupt and influenced by their personal lives.

 

[Rick]

Do you have the same concerning regards to Republican appointed judges? Both sides can be corrupt and influenced by their personal lives.

Conservative ( I don't speak for republicans) judges have the same likelihood of having to recuse themselves for personal affiliations, but what conservative judges lack that leftwing judges have in spades is the elitist, anti-democratic contempt for the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution.