That is some pretty unbelievable behavior.
I'm still for due process here. First things first, investigation and charges or censure or whatever punishment is brought. After that he should resign. Unless he wants to first. You know, for the good of the court/office/state.
I haven't seen Bradley ask for a resignation so far either.
TWO JUSTICES ENTER. ONE JUSTICE LEAVES.
[size=8](sorry, just had to say it.)[/size]
TWO JUSTICES ENTER. ONE JUSTICE LEAVES.
[size=8](sorry, just had to say it.)[/size]
Who run Justicetown?
Didn't say you were against it, Dimmer. And I see that you did have other reasons for calling for him to resign. Honestly, this is getting so far into farce territory I'm not sure what to think anymore.
Didn't say you were against it, Dimmer. And I see that you did have other reasons for calling for him to resign. Honestly, this is getting so far into farce territory I'm not sure what to think anymore.
It's only because you're new to the region. Soon enough you'll learn to laugh at Wisconsin, like the rest of us.
Forward!
I have a feeling the Illinois/Wisconsin relationship is a lot like the Michigan/Indiana or Michigan/Ohio relationship. We'll talk a nonstop stream of trash until some asshat that isn't from the midwest jumps in, and then suddenly it's solidarity.
Damn Californians/Texans/Floridians.
I have a feeling the Illinois/Wisconsin relationship is a lot like the Michigan/Indiana or Michigan/Ohio relationship. We'll talk a nonstop stream of trash until some asshat that isn't from the midwest jumps in, and then suddenly it's solidarity.
Damn Californians/Texans/Floridians.
Coasters are for holding your beer.
You make it, they'll hold it. Well, briefly, anyway.
Failing to recuse yourself from a case argued by your own lawyer is absolutely corrupt.
Failing to recuse yourself from a case argued by your own lawyer is absolutely corrupt.
Good thing he's not his lawyer:
The money that went to Troupis' office was for expenses and work done by other attorneys. Troupis did not bill for his own time working on the recount, according to Nemoir.
Either way I think it would be wise for him to step away from this case. I'll hold off on calling him corrupt unless there's some actual evidence of it.
Malor wrote:Failing to recuse yourself from a case argued by your own lawyer is absolutely corrupt.
Good thing he's not his lawyer:
The money that went to Troupis' office was for expenses and work done by other attorneys. Troupis did not bill for his own time working on the recount, according to Nemoir.Either way I think it would be wise for him to step away from this case. I'll hold off on calling him corrupt unless there's some actual evidence of it.
Troupis did work as a lawyer for Prosser, he just didn't bill him for it.
Troupis did not bill for his own time working on the recount, according to Nemoir.
I wouldn't call it corrupt without more evidence as well, but just the appearance of impropriety is enough to warrant him recusing himself.
MattDaddy wrote:Malor wrote:Failing to recuse yourself from a case argued by your own lawyer is absolutely corrupt.
Good thing he's not his lawyer:
The money that went to Troupis' office was for expenses and work done by other attorneys. Troupis did not bill for his own time working on the recount, according to Nemoir.Either way I think it would be wise for him to step away from this case. I'll hold off on calling him corrupt unless there's some actual evidence of it.
Donating your legal talent to a political campaign should be declared as an in-kind contribution, no?
Actually it'd be Free Speech now, wouldn't it?
Dimmerswitch wrote:MattDaddy wrote:Malor wrote:Failing to recuse yourself from a case argued by your own lawyer is absolutely corrupt.
Good thing he's not his lawyer:
The money that went to Troupis' office was for expenses and work done by other attorneys. Troupis did not bill for his own time working on the recount, according to Nemoir.Either way I think it would be wise for him to step away from this case. I'll hold off on calling him corrupt unless there's some actual evidence of it.
Donating your legal talent to a political campaign should be declared as an in-kind contribution, no?
Actually it'd be Free Speech now, wouldn't it? ;)
C'mon guys, we're talking about a recount here. It's not like they were out stumping for the guy. I agree with MattDaddy and Stengah, Prosser should probably recuse himself just because of the appearance of impropriety, but there's a big difference between pre-election aid and post-election recount work they were hired to do.
Troupis did work as a lawyer for Prosser, he just didn't bill him for it.
I'd say that's even WORSE -- not only was he Prosser's attorney, he volunteered. He worked for free.
Boy, if you wanted an example of just how ethically bankrupt the conservative government in Wisconsin is, there you go. Not the volunteering part, the failure to recuse.
Damn him for volunteering! He's a lawyer for pete's sake. He's going to give lawyers a bad name by working for free.
I actually don't think there is a problem with not recusing yourself in either situation. People being involved in cases where there is bias is a huge problem. A perception of bias is also an issue, as it can degrade public confidence in government.
However going to far is a danger as well. You have to have some form of trust in your government officials, and going too far in trying to eradicate bias is really just an issue of overlaying your own bias on to the issue, you only think that people that share your bias are truly unbiased (sort of like FOX News fair 'and balanced').
A recent example would be Judge Walker, a homosexual who did not recuse himself from judging on Proposition 8.
A relevant passage:
Walker's "sexual orientation was not a basis for his needing to recuse himself any more than a woman judge of reproductive age is disqualified from hearing a challenge to an abortion law or an African-American judge is disqualified from hearing a race discrimination case," says constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School, in an e-mail.
I actually don't think there is a problem with not recusing yourself in either situation. People being involved in cases where there is bias is a huge problem. A perception of bias is also an issue, as it can degrade public confidence in government.
However going to far is a danger as well. You have to have some form of trust in your government officials, and going too far in trying to eradicate bias is really just an issue of overlaying your own bias on to the issue, you only think that people that share your bias are truly unbiased (sort of like FOX News fair 'and balanced').
A recent example would be Judge Walker, a homosexual who did not recuse himself from judging on Proposition 8.
A relevant passage:
Walker's "sexual orientation was not a basis for his needing to recuse himself any more than a woman judge of reproductive age is disqualified from hearing a challenge to an abortion law or an African-American judge is disqualified from hearing a race discrimination case," says constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School, in an e-mail.
It's a bit different. In this case, one of the attorneys has had a very recent professional relationship with the judge, which resulted in a very favorable outcome for the judge. Troupis and his firm merely oversaw the recounts, so it's not like Troupis was essential to getting Prousser re-elected or did anything major, but the fact that he did so for free, while the rest of his firm charged, suggests they might have a personal relationship as well, or at least could be involved in an exchange of favors. That's just wild speculation, but the main reason judges are supposed to recuse themselves is to make any such speculation irrelevant. Neither side of the Prop 8 trial has any kind of a relationship with Judge Walker outside the courts to my knowledge, but if they did, I think he would need to recuse himself.
Edit - If someone were making the argument that Prosser should recuse himself because he's a member of the tea party (the group Troupis is representing in the upcoming case) then the Prop 8 comparison would be more valid.
Does anyone know exactly what role Troupis played during the recount? I think you're jumping to conclusions by assuming he didn't charge because he felt strongly about Prosser's candidacy. Maybe he didn't charge because he really did do anything to warrant charging for his services. I don't recall seeing anything that explained why he didn't charge for his services.
This really isn't much different from Sumi staying on the union case even though her son had strong ties to them. I know some will say it's not the same, but I think they are similar enough to warrant mentioning it.
So, what, exactly does Prosser have to lose by recusing himself from a case that people are arguing he should? At best, in this course of action, he _looks_ like an ass. Wouldn't it be better to sit this one out and not have the appearance of impropriety?
(Since tone is hard, I'm not really trying to be snarky, I am legitimately asking.)
Non snarky reply - my guess is that he's invested in his image of himself; recusing would be a sign of weakness.
Pages