In another blow to democracy the Wisconsin Supreme Court has now said that the Justices no longer have to recuse themselves when deciding matters that involve their contributors. The new rule was written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and business lobbying group Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. This, coupled with the ruling in the US Supreme Court does not bode well for the citizens of Wisconsin (I guess it is good for the corporations that are citizens). The rule was approved 4-3.
In another blow to democracy the Wisconsin Supreme Court has now said that the Justices no longer have to recuse themselves when deciding matters that involve their contributors. This, coupled with the ruling in the US Supreme Court does not bode well for the citizens of Wisconsin (I guess it is good for the corporations that are citizens. The rule was approved 4-3.
In Wisconsin we still elect the justices to our Supreme Court by the voters and they are not appointed by the governor.
To get a glimpse of the future, the rule saying that a justice does not have to recuse themselves was actually written by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors association. You read that correctly:
The new rule was written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and business lobbying group Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce. The justices rejected competing proposals from the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and former Justice Bill Bablitch, who wanted to require judges to step aside if a lawyer or party to a case gave them more than a certain amount.
Not only are our legislators for sale, it is open season on the courts. Take a look at the article if you can stomach it in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online
A nice quote from Justice Patience Roggensack
It will send a message that making lawful contributions is not a dishonorable thing to do and it's not a dishonorable thing to receive
I tend to agree with a rather conservative Justice N. Patrick Crooks
I think what it's going to do is add to the perceptions (of bias) that are apparently out there rather than put them to rest
One example of how this will work is looking at what has already happened when justice Annette K. Ziegler was elected and received $2 million dollars for her election,
The issue of recusal flared up in 2007 when Ziegler stepped aside in a case between the Realtors and the Town of West Point in Columbia County. The town had asked her to get off the case because she received $8,625 from the Realtors.
Without Ziegler, the court split 3-3, sending the case back to the Court of Appeals, which ruled against the Realtors.
Ziegler took heat months later when she decided to stay on another case viewed as critical by WMC, which spent $2 million to help get her elected. Ziegler wrote the 4-3 decision that favored WMC's position, triggering hundreds of millions of dollars in business tax refunds.
So now a corporation (as a person) can give unlimited funds to elect the candidate of their choice. The candidate can write a law that favors their benefactor, and if there is a problem with it and it gets taken to court, the judges and justices that receive large amounts of cash from the same benefactor will not have to recuse themselves. This ruling is really troubling.