In the court of public opinion, a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice is as good as guilty.
A front page story in this morning’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel details how Justice Michael Gableman has cast votes in favor of a law firm that has provided him free legal counsel in an ethics case. Whether that’s right or wrong is up to you to decide – that’s not what I’m writing about.
I’m writing about a short sentence that appears about halfway through the story: “Gableman has not responded to requests for an interview.”
"A sewer rat"
At the time I was writing this, the story had been carried by print, broadcast and online news organizations statewide and beyond – including the Chicago Tribune. In addition, there had been 155 references and links to the story on seven different social media – nearly two-thirds of them on Twitter, but also on Yahoo News, Bing, Google and others.
On the Journal Sentinel story – and a follow up story about a group filing a formal request for an ethics investigation into Gableman’s conduct – there were more than 400 comments posted. They included opinions such as:
- “Best court money can buy!”
- “The man has the ethics of a sewer rat.”
- “This guy is the very definition of sleazy.”
And Gableman chooses to dodge the media because, what, he can’t think of anything to say? Really?
Say something, anything!
How about something along the lines of: “I vote on the merits of the cases that come before me. No other considerations influence my decisions. Any suggestion that I do otherwise is just plain wrong. In a handful of cases that have come before me, I have ruled both for and against parties represented by a law firm that once provided me with free legal counsel. And in the only instance in which that law firm was actually a party in a case before the Supreme Court, I disqualified myself from ruling to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I am proud to serve as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and pledge to continue to uphold the high ethical standards the citizens of this state expect and deserve.”
Again, I’m not defending Justice Gableman; that’s his job. But anyone similarly accused could issue a statement like the one above. Not everyone who read it would agree, and it might not change many minds, but wouldn’t it be much better than saying nothing at all? As one commenter to the newspaper stories observed, “Gableman’s silence to interview requests is telling.”
Guilty as charged
Why don’t more high-profile people working for high-profile organizations understand that in the public’s mind, “did not respond to requests for an interview,” or “ was unavailable for comment,” mean exactly the same thing as, “I’m guilty,” or, “I have something to hide,” or, worse yet, both?
Post new comment