MADISON – Today, United Wisconsin announced its official endorsement of Ed Fallone for Wisconsin Supreme Court. Fallone is challenging conservative Justice Patience Roggensack and, along with one other challenger, faces a primary election on February 19.
“Ed Fallone is the clear choice for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice,” said United Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck. “Fallone has the experience and integrity necessary to restore civility, balance, and impartiality to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.”
Fallone has decades of experience in the legal field, with expertise in constitutional, criminal, and corporate law, and a long history of service to the community. His qualifications include:
- Associate professor of law at Marquette University
- Over 25 year as a practicing attorney in both Federal and State courts.
- J.D., magna cum laude, Boston University School of Law.
- Led non-profits organizations working to increase access to the justice system for immigrants and working families.
- Recipient of the President’s Award, Community Shares of Greater Milwaukee 2010.
Conservative incumbent, Patience Roggensack, has contributed to the dysfunction and high level of partisanship on the current court. She was a key supporter of closing certain Supreme Court proceedings, effectively keeping the court’s decision making process out of the view of the public. Along with her conservative colleagues on the court, Roggensack chose to recuse herself from hearing a case regarding fellow conservative, Justice David Prosser, preventing the hearing from moving forward. Her recusal blocked any possible disciplinary action in the case in which Prosser was accused of choking a fellow Justice.
“Wisconsinites deserve a high-functioning and non-partisan Supreme Court to protect our system of checks and balances,” Subeck added. “Fallone will help restore civility and trust in our state’s highest court. United Wisconsin is proud to endorse Ed Fallone for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice.”
# # #
United Wisconsin is an independent, grassroots organization of citizens restoring the Wisconsin tradition of democracy in action. For more information, visit our website at www.unitedwisconsin.com.
It seems that it wasn't 'putting politics first', but rather state law that required Roggensack to withdraw. "Roggensack said she had no choice but to withdraw, saying she was a material witness to the Bradley altercation. And Roggensack – who, like Prosser, is part of the court’s four-member conservative majority – said it’s against the law for judges to take part in cases in which they were witnesses." http://wixx.com/news/articles/2012/may/02/justice-roggensack-withdraws-from-prosser-ethics-case/
Now Bren is going to have to thunk-up another reason NOT to vote for Roggensack.
A witness in a case cannot be a judge in the case. In addition, you are writing as though certain accusations are true, when in fact they are disputed. What is interesting is that your argument is a political one, yet you criticize someone for making a decision on legal grounds of being politically motivated. I suppose that should have been expected, in that you posed the issue in a question that was pregnant with an assertion that was political in intent.
You neglected to tell us about how you voted on Baldwin and Thompson. How well did your pursuit of "balance" get executed in that race?
So when do we start holding elected officials, any political party to our own standards? Any who voted for Prosser, have you personally put your hands around a colleague's neck in anger? Have you every threatened to "destroy" a colleague in anger? This was a missed opportunity to send a message to a man with documented anger issues. As an individual who aspires to professionalism, I do have an issue with this and will look forward to hearing Justice Roggensack's rationale on the matter as the race heats up.
Considering that I have never been attacked by a colleague, I have never had occasion to place my hands on their neck in anger... What part of "it’s against the law for judges to take part in cases in which they were witnesses." are you failing to understand, Bren? What kind of explanation are you looking forward to hearing from Roggensack?
I'll be waiting to hear Roggensack explain what, if anything (including unofficial) conversation was had with Prosser about the incident, which was by no means isolated. This may seem a small matter, but consider, if this is what colleagues have to deal with imagine but subordinates might be going through (and if rumors are to be believe he is "difficult"). We the taxpayers pay Prosser and his subordinates, and it makes me uncomfortable that I am supporting bad behavior without a scrap of accountability.
Try dumping the awful talking points from the GOP executive board in Waukesha and try having a discussion with the Patch community.
Please try laying off the childish rhetoric and try having a discussion with the Patch community.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ron-robinson-james-b-taylor-young-americas-foundation-white-nationalists Once we get Roggy back in we can wipe our butts with the law and force the rest of the slobs to obey The Party law! Roggy '13 WALKER '14 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Today’s federal court ruling confirms what we’ve known all along: Act 10 is constitutional. What we’ve seen in this case–and with so many others before it is that a liberal Dane County judge made a political, not a legal, decision.”
It's pretty clear that Prosser was defending himself as the incident took place near the door. If Prosser were the aggressor, he would have been moving toward her and the contact would have been made further into the room. It sounds like Bradley has some problems with anger as well.