On Friday, unions scored a temporary victory to maintain their ability to collect union dues from Wisconsin public employees when Judge Maryann Sumi (the same judge who refused to order striking teachers back to work in February) issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the implementation of Wisconsin’s new law governing public-sector unions.
Via the Wall Street Journal:
Judge Maryann Sumi said a lawsuit filed by the Dane County district attorney had enough merit for her to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the bill while she reviews the case.
This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case. You see, Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. Her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. In fact, as a federation, the AFL-CIO can boast of several member-unions that represent public-sector employees. Maryann Sumi is hardly an unbiased judge in the matter.
Jacob “Jake” Sinderbrand, Sumi’s son [see page nine here], runs a company called Left Field Strategies, a firm that works on political campaigns.
We are a firm dedicated to maximizing efficient and effective voter contact in a modern campaign atmosphere. Specializing in doorknocking and phone bank strategies, we use state-of-the-art campaign resources to ensure that no doorknock or phone call is wasted as you campaign for office. We bring extensive experience as professional canvassers and callers, who have knocked on tens of thousands of doors, and have cut hundreds of thousands of doors and phone numbers for various issue and electoral campaigns.
As a “lifelong political actvist,” it appears Sumi’s apple didn’t fall far from the tree. According to Sinderland’s bio on his website:
A lifelong political activist, Jake Sinderbrand got his start as a volunteer doorknocker, and has years of experience training both volunteers and canvassing staff. Jake graduated from Macalester College cum laude with a degree in political science, specializing in American political structures. He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle. Jake’s expertise in canvass planning and turf strategy helped these organizations to have among the most successful field operations in Minnesota.
While FreedomEden has screenshots of Sinderbrand’s facebook page, one ironic twist to this whole sordid affair is that Maryann Sumi apparently gave a speech in 2007 entitled “Judicial Decision Making: Activism or Accountability?”
Clearly, both Sumi and her son are activists, which is why Sumi should be removed from the entire Wisconsin matter.
Photo credit: Nicholas Nikolic
_________________
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
LUR, thanks from bringing this to light.
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:03AM EST (link)I had posted on another diary that Sumi wasn’t a far left liberal….and that may be true about her as a judge. But it looks like I was wrong regarding how her ruling plays into the context of this situation.
So, are there any indications at this point that Walker’s team will challenge her judgment on this basis? Can they do so?
Walker's team appeal to Sumi's ruling put up today
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:22PM EST (link)http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_872e7154-53e0-11e0-8a0b-001cc4c002e0.html
more on WI action today
lineholder (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:32PM EST (link)DOJ appealing Sumi’s ruling
http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/03/wisconsin-dept-of-justice-appeals-sumi-decision/
In the above link, the DOJ was basing an appeal due to the Mar25th implementation date and the fact that Sumi won’t be back from vacation until the 28th. That was posted on the wheeler report at 1:06. p.m. today.
So at 4:31 p.m. today, a copy of this letter from AG LaFollette is posted:
http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0321/0321secofstate.pdf
And the results of the lawsuit against Walker that was made by Isthmus newspaper and WI AP media came back today. Of all the emails received from inside WI, the results were 55% for the bill and 42% opposed.
http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=32638
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ca97c286-fe25-5074-8cb0-5f9a2c240df8.html
Maryann Sumi is hardly unbiased
joepyne Monday, March 21st at 1:17AM EST (link)“This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case.”
Yes, it is a problem, so what will be done about it in the Republican led house, senate, and Republican Governor?
Crickets chirping …
The Crickets Chirp Loudly
pdigaudio (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:37AM EST (link)Considering Republican men tend to be girlie men, probably nothing. The GOP surrenders almost as well as the French.
I'm starting to dislike Scott Walker
akfroman Monday, March 21st at 2:51AM EST (link)I don’t understand why it is taking Walker so long to take action. It took him forever to pass the collective bargaining separately from the budget bill. Now he is fighting this judge’s decision in the courts, instead of just re-passing the bill following the exact letter of the open meetings law. Speed is critical; the longer this confrontation is carried out, the longer the unions are able to skew the media and rewrite contracts.
I’m also gone.
Flawed logic
jayjay501 Monday, March 21st at 5:01AM EST (link)This argument doesn’t make sense to me. What is the article saying? That the judge is biased because she has a son who works for a union? That she should have been vetted beforehand, and disqualified on that basis? If that’s the case, then don’t we need to interrogate every judge on every case and quiz them about the affiliations and jobs of every member of their family? We don’t do that currently, but should we start?
And where do we draw the line? Would it be ok if she had a nephew in a union, but not her son? What if she had a daughter who worked for Walker’s campaign – would that mean the judge was biased the other way and should be removed from the case? Can someone please explain the logic in this? I’m genuinely curious.
I don't know, but what's funny to me
bk (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 5:39AM EST (link)is that the same people screaming that Clarence Thomas needs to recuse himself from anything related to Obamacare (because his wife did work for people opposed to Obamacare) see no problem whatsoever in Wisconsin.
Exactly...
jayjay501 Monday, March 21st at 5:59AM EST (link)…it’s flawed logic whatever way you come at it. Everyone has an embarrassing relative. Carter had his brother. Bush’s daughter did him no favours when she was arrested for underage drinking.
If you are going to attack people, you should do it on their record, not someone else’s.
Of course, it's done. It's called a conflict of interest.
Martin Knight (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 6:22AM EST (link)If a close family relation is directly employed by a party before the court, a judge is supposed to recuse himself or herself from the case.
ummmmmm...really?
jayjay501 Monday, March 21st at 7:11AM EST (link)Even if this was so, which I don’t accept, the article says “FORMER lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council”.
So not directly employed at all.
But Halliburton pulled Cheney's puppet strings after he was no longer their CEO right? -nt
bk (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:30AM EST (link)...and your point is?
jayjay501 Monday, March 21st at 8:41AM EST (link)That might well be another interesting story, but it has nothing to do with this specific case. Accusing a judge of bias is a very serious charge, and you need to have proper facts to back it up.
Can anyone prove direct conflict of interest in this specific case? Is the judge likely to profit financially from her ruling? Is there a clear and unambiguous reason for her to recuse herself?
If the answers to these questions are “I don’t know” then we should leave her alone until the evidence proves otherwise.
Oh, so it was okay for YOU to introduce other scenarios
bk (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 9:04AM EST (link)but not for anyone else to do the same. Now I understand.
Your other scenarios were of the “where do you draw a line” sort, and I think I’m starting to see where that line is for you.
You are not being genuine
powertothepeople (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 10:44AM EST (link)in your argument and it is obvious that either you are not that smart or a leftist plant……….or even both.
You asked a question in your original post:
“Would it be ok if she had a nephew in a union, but not her son? What if she had a daughter who worked for Walker’s campaign – would that mean the judge was biased the other way and should be removed from the case? Can someone please explain the logic in this? I’m genuinely curious.”
Ok just in case your problem is stupidity, I will answer what I believe to be a leftist idiots attempt to start trouble.
Nephew, maybe yes or no. It would depend on the level on involvement and the level of relationship the judge has with the nephew. But without more info, you are simply playing semantics right now and demonstrating your intent here.
But moving on, yes have a child who works for the campaign of one of the litigants would cause her to be disqualified. Even a moron knows that. Even if she was able to “rule in a neutral manner” the fact she has a child working for one of the litigants would look horrible and lead to numerous appeals. The same applies here so lets not play stupid. It does not take a genius to know that the fact her son worked for the unions. is a political operative, and who pushed the union agenda makes her ability to rule is a neutral manner questionable if not downright impossible. Not to mention the appearance of her ability to remain neutral. She should have taken herself off the case.
Now, since it is obvious you took a wrong turn in your travel to liberal land. let me help you out.
<<<<<<<<<—————–This was to KosLand.
You need to back up your argument with some evidence...
jayjay501 Monday, March 21st at 1:43PM EST (link)…like for instance, “a child who works for the campaign of one of the litigants would cause her to be disqualified. Even a moron knows that.”
You might know this: I don’t. Again: please quote the specific rule the judge has broken. Then people will take your argument seriously.
I’ll help you out: someone mentioned Clarence Thomas earlier and this is the federal law I understand that his enemies cite when they accuse him of conflict of interest: “A judge should avoid any case “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The law requires recusal when the judge knows that “his spouse … has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
Now, can you make an argument that Judge Sumi’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned, if it can be shown that her son once worked for a union? I’d say not, for the reasons I’ve outlined above.
Can you prove that Judge Sumi will profit financially from this case? I’d say no.
By the way, calling people leftist idiots and using other disrespectful and insulting language is no a substitute for reasoned debate. It’s also contrary to the rules of this site.
Once again
powertothepeople (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 2:09PM EST (link)since you seem unable to comprehend. anytime a judge may seem compromised or be deemed unable to rule without bias, they are to remove themselves from the case.
And if you do not understand how there would be a problem with a judge having a child who works for one of the litigants, then you are hopeless. But again, I think it is more a leftist idiot who signed on to this site to start trouble. Can not be more clearer than that. Since you raised the nephew issue, it was not an answer directly relating to this case, simply a rebuttal to your nonsense. Nephew and son are two very different things and have to be judged on their own merit. Since it is not her nephew that is the problem, you raising the issue had nothing to do with the discussion. But if you are unable to mentally grasp why a judge should not preside over a case where her own son (hypothetically and in the case) is so involved in the dealing of one of the litigants, there is no hope in trying to explain it to you and you being able to understand.
Now on to more of your nonsense:
You ask can I make an argument that she would be biased due to her sons activity, political activism, and employment with the unions in this case and considering it is a self answering question, again I must assume either you are an idiot or simply here to cause trouble. I nor anyone else have to prove she is biased, it is the appearance that is all that matters. No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is biased unless they found a smoking gun. But the fact the such a close member of her household is that actively involved with one of the litigants gives enough of an appearance of possible bias that she should not hear the case.
Profit financially, irrelevant! Making money from a case is not the only thing that can disqualify a judge.
Lastly, not her to debate you as you have no position. I do not waste my time with people who come here only to start trouble and type nonsense. And since it is obvious from your shallow pool of posting that your purpose here is to cause trouble, me respecting you is not going to happen. And since it is obvious from your nonsense that you are a lefty, not sure why you take offense from me exposing that.
By the way, financial interests or personal gain is not the only reason for a judge to be removed and you know it. You are playing semantics again and it is not working.
“The law requires recusal when the judge knows that “his spouse … has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
According to Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” provides that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned “Bias or prejudice of judge,” provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a “timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party,” the case shall be transferred to another judge.
Having a son who makes their living due to the union, is actively involved in their political affairs, and other similar reasons more than meets the standard for her removal from the case under US law. And since he makes money, financial benefit, from union activities, once again the standard is met.
By the way
powertothepeople (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 2:11PM EST (link)please note the law does not define immediate family as having to be a spouse. Nice try, but you fail!
Simple and concise,
lilolady Monday, March 21st at 2:35PM EST (link)Once again Martin, you have nailed the heart of the issue. It is the
responsibility of the judge to be aware of her position, If she fails
in recognizing this simple fact, she deserves to be disbarred for lack
of legal propriety.
SOP for the Dems
peg_c (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 7:53AM EST (link)This lefty incestuous conflict of interest situation is SOP for the Dems and in fact it is the very basis, along with the union money-laundering scheme, of their party machinery. They would never be successful but for this exact type of corruption. This perfectly illustrates why they are determined to fill every judicial position with a lefty and why activist judges on the left are so necessary to Dem power.
Government cannot be the solution when government is the problem.
In the judge's defence...
jayjay501 Monday, March 21st at 8:23AM EST (link)First off, we haven’t yet established that this is a “lefty” activist judge.
You have taken the writer’s argument at face value – that because she has a son that once worked for a union, she must be biased. This does not necessarily follow.
Newt Gingrich has a lesbian activist sister. Does this negate his positions? Of course not.
She's compromised. Simple and short.
Martin Knight (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 1:19PM EST (link)Apples and oranges.
Not going to fly
joepyne Monday, March 21st at 11:26PM EST (link)“First off, we haven’t yet established that this is a “lefty” activist judge.”
First off, you were dismantled upthread, so I suggest you peddle your drivel elsewhere, or come up with better arguments.
Here you go...
LaborUnionReport (Diary) Wednesday, March 23rd at 12:28AM EST (link)SCR 60.03 (2)
http://www.wicourts.gov/about/committees/judicialcommission/code.htm?content=pdf&seqNo=1070
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine December 23, 1776
In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.-Ayn Rand
LaborUnionReport.com
The Most Comprehensive Source for
News & Views on Today’s Labor Unions.
Follow @laborunionrpt
Would it matter if the judge's husband were a lawyer representing the SEIU?
Beaglescout (Diary) Wednesday, March 23rd at 12:26PM EST (link)See his website here.
http://www.axley.com/representation-of-public-sector-employees
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
Sumi : the Musical
jgravelle Monday, March 21st at 10:10AM EST (link)[ With apologies to Frank Sinatra and the entire cast of "Guys and Dolls" ]
They promise us this, they promise us that
they legislate everything under the sun;
Then they lose the majority in twenty-ten
and they head out of state on the run;
When the GOP pass a bill
that the Democrats can-not kill
Do you wonder who will?
Call on Maryann Sumi, Sumi
Lefty Judge Sumi, she’d love to;
She’s in their pocket, they’re on her docket,
sheeeee’d lovvvvve tooooooo–
-jjg
Just a question,
ohtimtim (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 3:44PM EST (link)what is the law in Wisconsin that allows a county judge authority over a state legislature. I know that here in NY it would be unthinkable.
left on "vacation"
edwyrd (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 5:05PM EST (link)immediantly after her decision.
that should indicate her affiliation all too clearly for the liberally myopic
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
I think it is worse than that edwyrd.
carolina Monday, March 21st at 5:52PM EST (link)My understanding is that she will make her decision after she returns from vacation. She froze implementation, but did not issue a decison……. so everything is just on hold until she returns.
price of senate filibuster
edwyrd (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 5:50AM EST (link)liberal control of the countrys’ judicial system
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
price of senate filibuster
edwyrd (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 5:50AM EST (link)liberal control of the countrys’ judicial system
“but men are different, they propound mathmatical theorms in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of quebec and comb their hair at thermopylae. it is our nature!
—C.S Lewis, weight of glory
RedState love from Mark Levin right now.
barrypopik (Diary) Monday, March 21st at 8:12PM EST (link)Monday, the beginning of the last hour of the show, and Mark Levin is reading this article on the air!
I love it! My two wishes: Levin reading more RS on air & starts hyping Herman Cain -nt
fedsocdan (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 1:00AM EST (link)“The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”
“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
Milton Friedman
faulty reasoning on judicial bias
seandparnell (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 9:48AM EST (link)Based on what’s here, it would be wholly inappropriate to require or expect the judge to recuse herself. You’re making pretty much the same mistake that Common Cause and various other left-wing groups and individuals are making in their crusade against Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, trying to get the DOJ to investigate them and retroactively force recusal from the Citizens United decision (see here if you aren’t familiar with this: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/reformers-recusal-double-standard).
Recusal would only be appropriate if her son were a party to the challenge. Being part of the broader movement that opposes Walker’s budget reform bill is not sufficient, nor should it be, otherwise it would be just about impossible to find any “impartial” judges for cases tinged with politics, as most judges are “linked” to political activism in one way or another.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
thanks seandparnell
streiff (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 10:30AM EST (link)we are all such idiots here, we are so lucky to have you drop by and educate us. It is rare that a blog is blessed by a multidisciplinary savant such as yourself
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
Oh for Pete's sake
seandparnell (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 2:57PM EST (link)Seriously, are you utterly incapable of being even remotely civil to anyone who dares to disagree with you? Do you automatically assume that anyone who believes something you do not is necessarily insulting your intelligence? That must be quite frustrating for you, having almost everyone insult your intelligence on a regular basis…
Oh, and I’ll note once again (seems like we have this little discussion quite often) that you have completely failed to even attempt to address a single statement I made. You are, if you want, free to hop on the bandwagon of absurd claims of judicial recusal standards, which is right now being guided by Common Cause and their allies in an attempt to get Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to recuse themselves from hearing the challenge to Obamacare, and get Citizens United overturned. I suspect that’s not where most Redstate readers are.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
You suspect wrong
fpete13527 (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 3:10PM EST (link)LUR and Streiff’s analysis’ fit well and most that I know from RedState see it that way also. Yours – not so much.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion
seandparnell (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 3:45PM EST (link)My biggest objection to streiff’s rant is that he, once again, seems to be taking the position that anyone who disagrees with him is necessarily insulting his intelligence.
Oh, since you’re hopping on the Common Cause bandwagon, seeking the recusal of Scalia and Thomas if/when the challenges to ObamaCare come up, you might want to check these out:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=9039899
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/261633/robert-reich-s-reckless-attack-thomas-and-scalia-part-2-ed-whelan
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50757.html
Should give you a fuller understanding of the ramifications of adopting the recusal standards demanded here.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
just to reiterate
streiff (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 4:14PM EST (link)I objecting to your congenital asshattery and inability to engage in any conversation that doesn’t revolve around how much you know and how little anyone else knows even to the extent of burning your own house down to prove the point.
For someone who imagines themselves involved in politics your bonejarring ignorance of how politics is conducted is instructive.
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
I didn't say you were wrong
streiff (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 4:12PM EST (link)I was simply noting your usual “I’m a genius because I fellate Brad Smith” tone
“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”
You're disgusting
seandparnell (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 4:44PM EST (link)I guess I should have groveled and begged for forgiveness for disagreeing with LUR, and suggesting that what was offered wasn’t right. Because, when you disagree with someone, I’m sure that’s what you do, right?
Probably best that you take your crude schoolyard taunts and inability to deal with anyone who disagrees with you elsewhere. I’m pretty sure one of the rules around here is “Be respectful, or be banned.”
Wrong again
Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 4:50PM EST (link)You’re wrong a lot around here.
The rules are posted. What you cite is not among them. However it is against the rules to go around trying to moderate other commenters, or in this case, you as a commenter trying to moderate a moderator.
So you’re breaking rule #4. You might want to quit while you’re behind.
RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Funny
seandparnell (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 7:39PM EST (link)curious
seandparnell (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 10:01PM EST (link)Yes it does.
earlgrey (Diary) Wednesday, March 23rd at 12:31PM EST (link)You aren’t the first and won’t be the last. Red State isn’t the only site that will remove comments that don’t meet their standards.
HA HA HA
powertothepeople (Diary) Tuesday, March 22nd at 6:12PM EST (link)Got to love it……………