September 1, 2011
Troupis and Prosser
Once again I am reminded of Vince Lombardi after two penalties in quick succession were called against the Packers. He barked, "What the hell is going on out there?" It was not a question.
Take another glance at our state Supreme Court and I think you will ask, "what the hell is going on in there?"
Every lawyer I have talked with agrees that David Prosser should be disciplined for finding his hands on Justice Ann Walsh-Bradley's throat. But must he also recuse himself from hearing a matter where his attorney, Jim Troupis, is lead counsel? At first he said he would not recuse himself because he can remain neutral, but after the Journal Sentinel editors told him to step aside he tried to limit the damage and he sent a letter to litigants asking if they want him to recuse himself. WEAC said yes, Justice Prosser must recuse.
Troupis, the lawyer for Prosser, snapped back that he should remain on the case. Why? Some lofty notion of due process? No, Troupis said that if Prosser recuses himself, it will be costly to Troupis because clients would not hire him if they are convinced that they will automatically lose Prosser!
Wow! Isn't that the point? If hiring Troupis gains Prosser's vote then something is rotten. No litigant or counsel will expect a fair result if Prosser is part of the case.
Congratulations John Stocks: NEA president Dennis Van Roekel announced that former WEAC government relations director Stocks will be the executive director of NEA--the nation's largest union as of September 1. Stocks will direct a staff of 535 and an annual budget of $330 million.
Bob Fest is just around the corner. Remember--free parking, free admission, lots of good things to drink and eat. See you at the Coliseum.
post a letter about this blog »
Don't we have three branches of government in order to have a system of checks and balance? The branches aren't supposed to work in unison nor should they. It seems all three branches of Wisconsin's government have merged into a single, authoritarian process. As long as Walker has been consolidating more and more power into his grubby, bought hands, has the supreme court all of a sudden become irrelevant?
-Maria Caliente | Middleton, Wisc. | September 1, 2011
Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States which appears to apply to this situation, "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I believe this means impeachment of judges is a remedy for incompetent judges.
-Richard Kanak | Cherry Valley, Illinois | September 1, 2011
All the best for John Stocks. He is a good man.
-Joe Gruber | Campbellsport WI | September 2, 2011
I don't know Marie is the supreme court being irrelevant some thing that is new? One of my favorite article from the Doyle years.
"Doyle gave away the farm with agreements in perpetuity expanding the scope of gambling that voters put the clamps on as they approved a constitutional amendment. Legislative leaders Mary Panzer and John Gard took Doyle to court and the state Supreme Court ruled that Doyle overstepped his authority by approving expanded gambling. The court's ruling seems to have had little, if any effect, but Doyle clearly ignored the will of the people and the state Constitution."
Gambling is no big deal because only the rich get their money sucked out of their pockets at the casino right? Poor people never waste what little money they have gambling do they? Good thing they had Doyle and you progressive watch dogs looking out for them back then.
-SW | Waukesha WI | September 2, 2011