At least then his downfall would be consistent with his judicial philosophy that the law should not get in the way of putting people in prison.
Tomorrow is the moment of truth for Gableman, who will present his case to a state judicial panel, which will determine whether the some of the ads he ran against his opponent in last year’s Supreme Court race were dishonest. In case you forgot, Gableman’s entire campaign was based on the premise that incumbent justice Louis Butler was soft on crime, evidenced by his ability to find “loopholes” to set criminals free…as a public defender.
Gableman’s ad described the case of Reuben Lee Mitchell, a child sex offender who Butler defended on appeal as a public defender.
“Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child,” the ad said.
What it didn’t say was that while Butler prevailed before the appeals court, the Supreme Court ruled that Mitchell had to remain behind bars. He committed the subsequent crime only after he was released on parole.
The state Judicial Commission filed a complaint against Gableman in October, saying Gableman violated a provision of the state’s judicial ethics code that bars judges from lying about political opponents.
But Gableman argues the ad was true because it did not explicitly say that Butler’s actions caused Mitchell’s release. He can’t control how viewers might interpret his ads, his lawyers have argued.
What’s most disturbing about this case is not merely that Gableman lied, but that the complaint against him doesn’t include reference to his obvious disdain for the state’s constitution. His campaign was founded on the idea of disregarding a defendant’s right to legal representation. How can he possibly be fit to serve in a position where he will be expected to uphold that right? According to Gableman’s campaign, Butler’s response should have been,”Actually, on occasion I didn’t defend my clients. Sometimes I made sure to give them poor options, to make sure they were convicted and put in prison.”
On a different note Political Capital wonders if there is any motivation for justices to be non-partisan and impartial anymore. The answer in Wisconsin, I believe, points to the contrary.
Even worse, Minnesotans are now laughing at the Sconz’s legal system.