The right wing always made it sound as if our legalsystem had been intentionally set up to free criminals so they could go back toraping and pillaging our communities with abandon.
In fact, those so-called “technicalities” thatresulted in convictions being overturned were anything but petty. They usuallyinvolved police, prosecutors or the courts themselves breaking laws orviolating our Constitution.
For conservatives, however, despite what you mayhear at their tea parties, any abuse by government pales in comparison to theacts of lowlife criminals, whom they define as anyone accused of a crime.
That attitude didn’t seem to apply, however, whenconservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman was facing acomplaint from the state Judicial Commission for violating judicial ethics andlying about his opponent in a campaign ad.
You may have heard what Gableman was able to do.That’s right: Gableman found a loophole and got off on a technicality.
Actually, you may not have heard. The WisconsinSupreme Court, justifiably, took so little pride in its action, the courtreleased the decision late at night under cover of darkness.
Even then, Gableman wasn’t really exonerated. Hesucceeded in the same way Americans recently learned teams can stay alive in asoccer tournament: He managed to eke out a tie.
Since not even Gableman was brazenly unethicalenough to cast a vote in his own ethics case, the seven-member Supreme Courtsplit 3-3 on whether Gableman was guilty of lying in a racially tingedcommercial he ran against former Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, the onlyAfrican American to serve on the court.
Three justices ruled Gableman was a liar. The otherthree justicesusing an excruciatingly “technical” definition of whatconstitutes a lieruled the ad wasn’t exactly a lie even though it was “distasteful.”
So, in effect, the Wisconsin Supreme Courtunanimously ruled Gableman was either an outright liar or just a horribleperson.
Despite that, Gableman probably will avoid anypunishment. Talk about finding a loophole.
Hollow Rhetoric
The vote breakdown between the members of the courtrevealed just how hollow conservative political rhetoric on justice really is.
Conservative justices are the ones who hate the ideaof despicable miscreants getting off on technicalities, right? That’s why theircampaign commercials feature all those clanging jail doors. They want to put astop to that sort of thing.
Well, guess what. Suddenly, conservative justiceshave a newfound love for legal loopholes that allow bad guys to avoidpunishment.
The three conservative justicesDavid Prosser, PatRoggensack and Annette Zieglervoted as a bloc to let Gableman off on atechnicality. The three more liberal justicesChief Justice Shirley Abrahamson,Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooksfound Gableman guilty.
The charge was particularly interesting because itinvolved a Gableman commercial accusing Justice Butler of using a legalloophole to set free a child molester who then went on to molest another child.
Well, technically, the commercial didn’t exactly saythat. Everyone who saw the commercial just thought it said that.
First of all, the commercial showed photographs oftwo black men side by side. One was a glowering mug shot of a hated childmolester, Reuben Lee Mitchell. The other was Supreme Court Justice Butler. Butler was laughing.
The voice-over said: “Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on tomolest another child. Can Wisconsin familiesfeel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court?”
The so-called “loophole” was that Butler, when he was a public defender, won anappeals court decision that Mitchell deserved to get a new trial because oflegal errors that initially prevented him from being fairly tried.
Butlerand the appeals court were doing their jobs not only for the accused, but forall of us, by requiring that prosecutors and the courts follow the law.
What the commercial did not saymaking the entire ada liewas the Supreme Court overruled the appeals court decision. Mitchelldidn’t get a new trial. He was never released until he served his entiresentence.
The fact that later in life Mitchell committedanother crime had nothing to do with Butler’shandling of his previous case.
Violating judicial ethics can result in a judgebeing removed from the bench. One would think conservative justices might besticklers for obeying not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit ofthe law.
But instead the conservatives accepted Gableman’stortured argument that even though the public thought his commercial said Butler had set free achild molester to attack another child, the words didn’t exactly say that.
This time a lowlife really did get off on atechnicality.
