A Judge Should Know Better

Share

In December One Wisconsin Now sent a letter of concern to the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee (JCIC). It was about a very questionable set of letters sent out by Supreme Court Candidate Michael Gableman. The letters could have been interpreted that Gableman would rule a specific way on specific cases if they again come before the high court. The JCIC was designed in part to review materials that may attempt ‘€œto lead voters to believe that a candidate will decide issues or cases in a predetermined manner.’€ Apparently Michael Gableman learned nothing from his last interaction with the JCIC as he now finds himself the subject of yet another complaint.

The Wisconsin Association for Justice requested that the JCIC investigate another questionable letter from the Gableman Campaign. This letter is signed by former Republican Lt. Governor Margaret Farrow. In the letter she attacks several majority decisions from the high court. Once again, it is easy to interpret the letter as a statement of how Michael Gableman would rule on these very issues. Leading voters to believe that he would rule in a predetermined manner, as the letter clearly suggests, would be a violation of very basic judicial rules.

The letter not only confirms that Gableman has a tendency to make the same mistakes repeatedly, but also shows that he is willing to play fast and loose with the truth. One of the cases cited in the letter was a criminal matter, State v. Brown. The letter states flatly that the majority decision by the Supreme Court resulted in the release of a sexual predator into Milwaukee County. The fact of the matter is that Richard Brown was not ‘€œreleased’€ after the Supreme Court decision. Brown has remained incarcerated at the Sand Ridge facility for sexual offenders, in full state custody and is absolutely NOT on the street ‘€“ the opposite of what Gableman’€™s campaign claims. Michael Gableman only had to look at the sex offender website to discover this fact. Apparently he was too concerned with attacking the high court and didn’€™t have time to check the facts. A sitting judge should know better.

# # #