Issue of the Week: The Gableman Problem

Plus Hero of the Week

Sep. 07, 2011

midnight

How do you solve a problem like Michael Gableman?

The state Supreme Court justice admitted that he lied in a race-baiting campaign ad that won him the election in 2008. But he got away with it when the majority of justices failed to do the right thing and discipline him.

Now it looks like Gableman lied to investigators looking into Justice David Prosser's attack on their fellow justice, Ann Walsh Bradley. Gableman told investigators that Bradley had smacked him on the head on Sept. 18, 2008a date fixed in his mind because it was his birthday and he had only been on the bench for a month. Gableman said his fellow justices witnessed the alleged thumping and they didn't think it was funny.

It turns out that Gableman's story doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The court didn't meet on Sept. 18, 2008. His fellow justiceswho Gableman said had seen the alleged attacksay they don't remember it happening and only heard about it recently, when Gableman told them. And now Gableman's saying that the alleged thumping happened in 2009, not 2008, which means his whole story is a lie.

Will Gableman get away with lying again?

Could he be formally charged for lying to investigators? Will the Dane County district attorney have the courage to charge a state Supreme Court justice over this matter?

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission is looking into the Prosser-Bradley incident. But even if the commission finds that Gableman lied to investigators and should be disciplined in some way, the Supreme Court would have to sign off on it. We predict a 3-3 deadlock, just like the court had deadlocked on Gableman's original campaign ad lie.

As the watchdog group One Wisconsin Now notes, the state Legislature can remove Gableman from office in two ways. Gableman could be impeached, which requires a trial and conviction by two-thirds of the state Senate. Given the Republican Senate majoritywhose bacon was saved by Gableman's vote on the open meetings casethat just isn't going to happen. Gableman can also be removed by address, which requires two-thirds support in both houses of the state Legislature. That's not going to happen, either. Further, in both of these instances, Gableman's removal would allow Gov. Scott Walker to appoint his successor.

But Wisconsin citizens aren't powerless. We can remove an unethical Supreme Court justice like Gableman via recall, just like two Republican senators were recalled this summer after signing off on Gov. Walker's union-busting bill and historically toxic state budget. A recall election would force Gableman to face a challenger for his seat on the Supreme Court, rather than allow Walker to appoint a successor.

Friends of the Shepherd

Help support Milwaukee's locally owned free weekly magazine.

LEARN MORE

Will Wisconsinites demand that our Supreme Court justices tell the truth by recalling Mike Gableman? That's up to you.Among many other challenges, parents of children with special needs are faced with the daunting task of continually advocating for their kids. Identifying and utilizing available resources can be a bewildering experience for those unfamiliar with the terrain. Founded by a concerned group of volunteer parents in 1995, the Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for Education, Training and Support (WI Facets) has grown into a leading source of information and support for parents of children with special needs.

WI Facets currently has more than 50 volunteer Parent Leaders who provide free services to families in Wisconsin, including information and referral assistance to programs and resources. They also organize workshops and support groups to enable parents and caregivers to make the best choices for their children. Readers interested in helping area parents advocate for their kids are encouraged to call the WI Facets office (600 W. Virginia St.) at 414-374-4645 or visit www.wifacets.org.

Friends of the Shepherd

Help support Milwaukee's locally owned free weekly magazine.

LEARN MORE

Comments (7)

Comment Feed

Let's not lose sight of the real battle, the divid...

Let's not lose sight of the real battle, the divide in public opinion in the classic "Labor vs Management" struggle. This is the struggle that our Civil War was fought over, (it was not about freeing black slaves, but most people's rational thought process stops when faced with "black and white").

The Civil War was fought over the North's attitude of workers rights, which is "free to move to another employer", versus the South's attitude, which is "workers have no rights... only owners do". With Slavery or Sharecropping, (or coal mining in W.Virginia, or indentured servitude), the worker is captive, cannot move on until they did their time or paid for all their "company" or "master" started them off with. "Started them off", could be what's needed to feed, clothe, shelter a child, even to educate that future "worker", indoctrinate them to not "start thinking" and rise above their birthright destiny. -- Note that I put in that bit about indentured servitude, which covers the 7-year time limited white slavery of early colonial New England, even they were divided amongst themselves. That's where the original "State's Rights" debate began. "State's Rights" is where the support was to maintain these different workers rights attitudes, or state's rights never would have risen so high in importance. Only in America did we corrupt the 7-years into lifetime service, and of their descendants, too.

This is not a simple Republican vs Democrat thing. Republican's are split into the wealthy who own the businesses or large shares of them, and the poor members in the "big tent", the ones who generally want the social environment of the past restored (or at least they have chosen to not bite the hand that they believe feeds them). Democrats are split as well, more so on North vs South than rich vs poor. Obama's lack of results was that he was not going to get the support of the Democrats in the south, the very ones who generally believe that a black man in a position of power is an abomination (Obama may be half white and raised white, but he looks black and there's no more to say without the adrenaline building up).

My concern is the underlying "owners" versus "public masses" that splits both the Democrats and the Republicans. That basically equates to Management vs Labor. The desire of the rich is to get richer... at any cost, and the desire of the public masses is to keep enough for themselves to stay in the game.

Both the haves and the have-nots can get behind "Lower Taxes, Smaller Government", but please remember who will benefit more from such changes... the haves, or the have-nots. The brain-washed have-nots believe that letting the employers keep their money will bring back jobs. They also believe that stripping governments of their ability to regulate or enforce regulations will also bring back the jobs. But the reality is that Zero taxes and Zero regulations still does not make up the difference between even reduced Labor's $10/hour here vs outsourced Labor's $10/day. My belief is that when you let employers keep their cash they will use that to accelerate the outsourcing (moving your capital business infrastructure is not cheap).

I can see 3 Recalls this January... that will bring out the vote. Recall Walker, Recall Gableman, Recall Prosser.