One of the more rousing cheers during the State of the Union last night came after President Obama called out the ridiculous ruling from the Supreme Court last week that threw open the door to a new flood of corporate cash into campaigns. The Bush boys, Justices Roberts and Alito, swore up and down during confirmation they weren’t “judicial activists,” wouldn’t “legislate from the bench” and then promptly overturned campaign finance legislation already passed in state after state, and essentially halting efforts in Wisconsin to toughen up existing laws.

The Obama administration is going to renominate Louis Butler for appointment as a federal judge. The Senate returned the nomination to the White House, along with several others, when it recessed at Christmas.

A GOP flack offers this negative comment on Butler:

"Voters across the state decided not to elect him to continue serving on the Supreme Court because they thought he was a radical judge who was legislating from the bench," Kristin Ruesch, communications director for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, said.

They thought that because Butler's opponent, Michael Gableman, ran a television commercial to make them think that.

Gableman's now an Injustice on the State Supreme Court.

As is the tradition, a tour through the best and worst of the year.

The Best

The year started off on the high note that was watching the Worst President Ever leaving the White House for the last time, which brought with it another yearly best: the endless video compiliations of the worst Bush moments. YouTube never had it so good. 

Here in Wisconsin, decisive and effective action from Madison earlier this year is leading Wisconsin out of the worst of the Bush recession. Unemployment here has been dropping since June and is lower than the national rate, and despite the worst rhetoric from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce bashing Wisconsin’s economy, business are opening and relocating here and bringing jobs to the state. 

For sheer entertainment value, President of Teabag-istan Sarah Palin’s descent into madness during 2009 is second to none. Remember when she quit being governor on July 4th weekend? What a patriot! Remember how she doesn’t even ride in that stupid bus on her stupid book tour? Or how she still demands to be called governor and requests English-only reporters? 

Combining two of her most juvenile and irritating hobbies, namely lying and facebooking, she launched the Lie of the Year: Death Panels. And at her no cameras, no cell phones, no media, no nothing event in Milwaukee for Wisconsin Right to Life on November 6, she floated another whopper, suggesting that President Obama and “teh libruls” conspired to move “In God We Trust” from the new dollar coin when in reality it was the previously mentioned Worst President Ever. 

We hold these truths to be self evident ... Rights, that among these are lying, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What's that? You don't remember the right to lie being enumerated? A panel of three Wisconsin judges took care of that oversight today. Candidates for public office -- specifically one Michael Gableman -- have a constitutional right to lie.

Judge Ralph Adam Fine explains, beginning on page 20 of this ruling.

Is this a great country or what?

Hat tip: Illusory Tenant.

Fellow citizens – did you hear the good news? The Wisconsin Supreme Court is up for sale! So come now, fellow peasants! Let us pool our unemployment checks and the couple extra dollars those of us lucky enough to have a job can afford and try to outbid Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and buy ourselves some justice! I heard Mike Gableman can be bought for mere millions.

In case you missed the news, WMC-purchased “Justices” Mike Gableman and Annette Ziegler once again ruled in favor of the WMC position – this time that justices shouldn’t have to remove themselves from ruling on a case involving a campaign contributor no matter how much that contributor spent to help elect said justice(s). Which now means the corporate titans at WMC can now point to Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent to spend obscene amounts of money on dirty and misleading campaign ads in support of judges that will rule in favor of corporations without a concern that justices will have to recuse.

Any reasonable person can see the glaring conflict of interest. And those who can’t, I propose a simple task: show me one Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in which Justices Gableman and Ziegler ruled against WMC and the corporate interests they represent.

"Where was Sensenbrenner's outrage when George Bush made John Ashcroft the Attorney General immediately after Ashcroft lost a statewide election to someone who had died? How about after Bush made Spencer Abraham the Energy Secretary immediately after he lost reelection to his Senate seat? This is another example of the Republicans' willingness to stop at nothing to defeat the agenda of President Obama, no matter the cost, no matter the hypocrisy." - Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now Executive Director.

At today’s hearing before the three-judge ethics panel convened to determine whether Supreme Court Justice Mike Gableman should be disciplined over a false (and racist) campaign ad he launched against then-Justice Louis Butler, the head of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission summed up Gableman’s notorious ad:

"Let's say what it is - it's a lie," James Alexander said.

Serially ethical recidivist Supreme Court ‘Justice’ Mike Gableman has made headlines again.

This time, he escapes by the skin of his now-perfectly aligned teeth to avoid reprimand from the Office of Lawyer Regulation for making illegal fundraising phone calls from his Burnett County District Attorney office phone.

Paul Schwarzenbart, lawyer for OLR wrote "for lack of any other explanation, one can infer that at least some of these calls may have related to Gableman supporting Gov. McCallum and the Cable fundraiser." And just so we’re clear: state law clearly says using government phones and computers for campaigning is strictly prohibited, even if the state is reimbursed.

Too bad Gableman got a case of the “Alberto’s” and just couldn’t recall what the heck he was talking about with GOPer fundraisers and campaign folks. OLR said that proving a violation occurred would be tough, given the unwillingness of Gableman and many others to cooperate with investigators.

If there was any debate about the rising influence of corporate interests like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce before the State’s highest court, the last two weeks have ended the discussion. It now appears the Wisconsin Supreme Court is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wisconsin’s corporate crooks.

Those of you following One WI Now’s reporting on the judicial ethics already know that “Justices” Michael Gableman and Annette Ziegler came to the court under a cloud of suspicion. Ziegler got an unprecedented reprimand from the High Court after she ruled in dozens of cases in which she and/or her husband had a financial stake; Gableman remains under investigation. And of course we all remember ads run by WMC supporting these two serial-ethics violators. Just a bit of background...

Last week I reported corporate lapdogs Gableman and Ziegler ruled that owners of a Wisconsin manufacturing company had the right to take millions of dollars in compensation as they drove the company into the ground and failed to pay up on its union contracts. WMC made it clear it early on that it supported the rights of the owners to screw the workers out of the pay they earned with their hard work. And when it mattered most for the CEOs/crooks WMC represents, the justices WMC spent millions electing came through in the clutch. Score: Corporate Special Interest – 1; Wisconsin Working Families – 0.

I guess when rains it pours.

Once again, the dependable corporate lapdogs on the Wisconsin Supreme Court bought and paid for by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce come through in the clutch for corporate interests. Justices Mike Gableman and Annette Ziegler, beneficiaries of millions of dollars in spending from WMC during their run for the Supreme Court, ruled yesterday that owners of a Wisconsin manufacturing company had the right to take millions of dollars in compensation as they drove their company into the ground.

WMC filed a brief in appeals court last year defending these corporate criminals, pushing the same tired talking point that a ruling against the owners forcing them to pay damages to the workers they bilked out of fair compensation would have a “chilling effect on business.” When Polsky v. Virnich was sent to the Supreme Court, the Associated Press noted WMC withdrew from the case and cited the gobs of money it spent helping to elect the corporate bloc of the court in Gableman and Ziegler created a huge conflict of interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Wisconsin Justices Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman must disqualify themselves from hearing any cases involving Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

That is an oversimplification, but not by much. Here is how the NY Times summarized the decision in a front page story today:

Elected judges must disqualify themselves from cases involving people who spent exceptionally large sums to put them on the bench, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

 

 The decision, the first to say the Constitution’s due process clause has a role to play in policing the role of money in judicial elections, ordered the chief justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court to recuse himself from a $50 million case against a coal company whose chief executive had spent $3 million to elect him.

Ziegler, who had a track record of ignoring conflicts of interest as a circuit judge, ignored calls to recuse herself from a case which WMC called a top priority, involving the Menasha Corp. and the question of whether corporations must pay sales tax on customized software.

Ziegler not only participated and cast the deciding vote in the 4-3 decision, but wrote the opinion -- worth an estimated $350-million to WMC, which filed an amicus brief in the case, and its members. Not a bad return on a $2-million investment.

As an aside, the lawyer who could have asked Ziegler to recuse herself from the case was Atty. Gen.J. B. Van Hollen. But WMC spent $2.5-million to get Van Hollen elected, so he didn't make a peep.

There's another case, Virnich and Moores, in which a decision is expected soon, described as "a case that could rewrite corporate law in Wisconsin."

At issue is whether business owners can enrich themselves at the expense of others, including workers and creditors, who have a stake in the business. In plain language, it's whether they can pocket all the money personally, see the business fail, and screw everyone else out of what is due them.

WMC filed a brief favoring the business owners at the appeals court stage, but has been quiet at the Supreme Court level so as not to remind people of the huge conflict Ziegler and Gableman ignored when they participated in hearing oral arguments in January, despite an effort to get them to recuse themselves.

Despite its obvious application to Wisconsin, the U.S. Supreme Court decision got scant notice in the state's press. The Journal Sentinel offered a story that mentioned Ziegler and the Menasha case, and said the state court is considering some new rules, but not much more, and nothing on the pending Virnich and Moores case.

Meanwhile, WisPolitics includes this:

Attorney Mike Wittenwyler, who closely follows election and campaign laws, said the federal ruling will give new ammunition to parties before the state Supreme Court seeking to force a justice off a case. But the difficulty could be finding an example as extreme as the West Virginia case in which one person spent $3 million on a campaign.

 

Wittenwyler also noted Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the minority in the 5-4 decision, listed 40 questions he would raise in developing a standard for recusal, all factors that the state justices will have to consider as they ponder developing regulations for state courts.

To say that Wittenwyler "follows election and campaign laws" is like saying that Rahm Emmanuel follows politics. Wittenwyler is a specialist in campaign finance law who represents a broad spectrum of clients -- including WMC, whom he should have billed for that quote.

Hard to find an example as extreme as the West Virginia case where someone spent $3-million to elect a supreme court justice? Anyone who closely follows elections and campaign laws should be able to cite a couple of examples in Wisconsin. Wittenwyler must be laughing all the way to the bank.

As to the 40 questions Justice Roberts posed, the key word is "minority." His questions, which got a mention in the 24th paragraph of the NY Times story, are hardly the issue.

You don't need to be a lawyer or a judge to understand that WMC may have wasted more than $4-million to elect two justices who won't be able to repay the favor by ruling on their cases. Of course, there's already that $350-million from the Menasha case, so maybe the investment has already paid for itself.

If this decision doesn't produce some tough, clear rules about when Wisconsin judges must disqualify themselves, there can be no acceptable excuse.

Ever wonder where Randy Koschnick's campaign gets the funny numbers it uses in its bogus claims about Shirley Abrahamson's record?

Now it can be told, thanks to the latest campaign finance report Koschnick filed with the Government Accountability Board.

Koshnick has gone to Ms. New Math herself -- Jessica McBride Bucher.

She can be relied upon to cook the books according to any recipe you'd like, as she demonstrated by her endless number crunching to try to show that Justice Louis Butler never met a criminal or a defense motion he didn't like.

Koschnick's been trying to make the same case against Abrahamson. No wonder Koschnick's claims about Abrahamson are so far off base.

Ms. Bucher -- that's how she's listed in the reports -- used to do bad math as a hobby, burning the midnight oil and typing furiously on her blog, since closed to visitors. Now she's found someone to pay her -- $1,250 paid so far and another $1,000 still owed her -- for her work.

Wonder if she has malpractice insurance.

The endless distortions of Randy Koschnick made news this week after the Jefferson County judge made a statement about the Greater Wisconsin Committee that was patently false according to the Associated Press.

GWC always has meticulous fact-checking for the media for its issue pieces, but Koschnick wasn't going to let a couple facts get in the way.