Michael Gableman is asking another leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court justice to recuse herself from his disciplinary case before the state Office of Lawyer Regulation, according to court documents obtained by The Federalist.
Gableman, the former state Supreme Court justice tapped by Republican legislative leadership in 2021 to lead a politically-doomed investigation into Wisconsin’s irregularity-filled 2020 presidential election, could have his law license suspended at the hands of a liberal-led court that clearly loathes him.
The court will ultimately decide if the recommended 3-year suspension is proper.
‘No Reasonable Person’
On Wednesday, Gableman’s attorneys filed a motion with the court calling on Justice Janet Protasiewicz to step away from the proceedings, citing biased comments she made on the campaign trail. Protasiewicz, who in 2023 defeated former Justice Daniel Kelly in what was at the time the most costly judicial election in U.S. history, released a caustic press release effectively declaring Kelly and Gableman enemies of the state.
”It’s too bad that Dan Kelly continues to join Mike Gableman in courting extremists who oppose democracy,” the Milwaukee County liberal opined. “Dan Kelly and Mike Gableman have demonstrated to the citizens of Wisconsin that they are not fit to be on the bench.”
In the same campaign statement, Protasiewicz denigrated all Republicans concerned with election integrity, accusing them of being part of “disgraceful effort to promote Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election.”
Given her history, Gableman argues Protasiewicz is unable to live up to a core judiciary standard: Avoiding even the appearance of bias.
“Because of her statements on the campaign trail, she can’t comply with this standard while deciding whether Gableman has breached his professional responsibilities or, if he has, determining the appropriate discipline,” the recusal motion states, adding that “no reasonable person would want a judge to rule on his or her case after publicly and zealously attacking the person‘s professional judgment and character.”
The motion quotes from a 2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, which borrows from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1965 Estes v. Texas decision, cementing the basic requirement of due process, and the pursuit of preventing even “the probability of unfairness. . .”
Noble words. But In Wisconsin, the justices alone are the final arbiters of recusal, each deciding the question of whether to recuse, or not to recuse.
‘Rubber Stamp’
Last month, leftist Justice Rebecca Dallet denied a similar request to recuse herself from the Gableman disciplinary proceedings.
On the campaign trail in 2017, Dallet accused Gableman, a justice at the time, of running “one of the most unethical campaigns in state history.” She attacked him for refusing to recuse himself from what she banally described as a “criminal campaign-finance” investigation, accusing Gableman of being a “rubber stamp for his political allies.” Dallet was referring to Wisconsin’s notorious “John Doe” investigations, politically-driven probes led by left-leaning government agents who secretly targeted Wisconsin conservatives. Gableman wrote the majority opinion that found the star chambers unconstitutional and that the special prosecutor “was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent…”
In her denial order, Dallet insisted that none of the public statements she made about Gableman while she campaigned for her Supreme Court seat “create a serious risk of actual bias…” The justice claims she can act fairly and impartially in Gableman’s case.
“In short, the opinions I expressed about Gableman’s judicial and campaign conduct from 2008 to 2018 say nothing about the conduct he is now accused of committing, let alone demonstrate that in either fact or appearance I cannot act impartially in this matter,” Dallet wrote.
Keep reading
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.