Maryann Sumi is the judge who blocked the Wisconsin union bill, citing open meetings law. And in answer to the question in the headline: Maybe!
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.
Evidence with links in the post. And there’s this, from the comments:
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. (emphasis added)
Hitch: The son no longer works for either of the unions for which he did previous work. At least, not that we know of. He is apparently a political consultant, and may be working for any number of folks with connections to the case. The questions need to be asked, and might have been answered easily by reading his company’s website…before they took it down, anyway. Lawyers in the audience, what say you?
Aside: Who runs a company website on blogspot?
I’m still floored that more jokes haven’t been made over the fact that the judge’s name is Sue-Me. Did she rise to her judgeship from the firm of Dewey, Cheetham & Howe?
That’s the same argument, though, that the Left is using against Clarence Thomas in potential Obamacare hearings.
I find this ludicrous. It is not a financial conflict of interest and her son doesn’t even work for the SEIU anymore. Are you actually saying that any judge who has a family member with any political stance constitutes a conflict of interest? This is McCarthy-style guilt by association, and again, I find it irrational and ludicrous. If you start to apply this logic to all court cases, you’ll quickly find that most judges everywhere have to recuse themselves of nearly everything.
McCarthy?? Really? Why not use Hitler as well??
Getting beyond your irrational hyperbole, the judge’s son is not some regular person with JUST a political stance like 99% of the population.
Her son is a political OPERATIVE. The son is a paid professional advocate for the side the judge just ruled in favor of.
Can you not see that?
Given all that, I am inclined to give a judge the benefit of the doubt as long as the issues are disclosed.
Without knowing who her son is currently working for, its impossible to say. Aside from the “appearance of conflict” angle, his former association with interested parties is irrelevant.
But (as seems likely to me given his background) he is lobbying on this bill, then I think you are closer to territory where he has a financial interest in the outcome of the case. “Financial interest” is usually defined pretty strictly to mean that someone is obligated to pay $X if the case goes a certain way, which isn’t the case here, I’m sure.
But, if he is directly involved as a paid lobbyist opposing a bill that she is being asked to strike, she should recuse herself as a matter of simple decency. I don’t think you could find a similar connection between Mrs. Thomas and any case before the Supreme Court, BTW.
Let me introduce you to Google site search. Enter this into Google:
site:leftfieldstrategies.com
You will find (at this time) seven pages which are all currently cached. Clicking the “Cached” link will bring up Google’s last version of the page.
(This doesn’t yield a lot of information. The “About Us” page has capsule bios of Josh Wise and Jake Sinderbrand, who appear to be the principals. Both are identified as having worked for the SEIU; Sinderbrand also worked for the AFL-CIO. There are only two blog posts, both from last August: a launch announcement, and an announcement that they’re workng on the campaign of Mike Germain for Minnesota state senate. There’s also a “Products and Services” page with standard campaign services, and a “Contact Us” page (gmail email account). It looks very low-rent (Blogger, gmail) and as though they had only the one client. It doesn’t look to be a currently active outfit.)
I found the words below from a Google cache page googling “left field strategies”…there are others as well…looks like there’s something to your theory about a conflict of interest!
Why Left Field Strategies?
Congratulations, you’ve won the primary! Now that you’re the nominee, you need to talk to as many voters as possible. Whether you’re setting up a phone bank, sending direct mail, or going out and meeting voters face-to-face, over the next three months you will need to talk to thousands of swing voters, drop-off voters, and first-time voters. Successful campaigns need to know how to target the potential voters who can carry you to victory on Election Day.
The 2010 election is going to be tough. There’s no unifying national campaign, and progressive candidates don’t have public opinion strongly on our side, as we did in the last two cycles. In order to put yourself over the top in November, you’re going to have to pound the pavement, get on the phone, and make a personal connection with as many voters as it takes to win. Unfortunately, in many campaigns, the job of creating the walk maps and phone lists often isn’t given proper thought and planning. While dedicated campaign workers and volunteers mean well, a lack of knowledge and experience means that you often won’t be walking the best route or talking to the best group of voters. That’s where we come in.
When you hire Left Field Strategies, you will get a well-thought-out, strategic turf management plan unique to your campaign environment, integrating formal and informal phone banks and door-knocking with your direct mail so that you can contact your voters in the most effective and efficient way possible.
At Left Field Strategies, we focus on one specific aspect of campaigning: field contact. Everything we do is designed to work with your message so that you and your volunteers can spend the most time possible doing what wins elections: talking with voters. Our door-knocking plans make the most of your volunteers’ time and ensures a less confusing, more rewarding experience. Our phone lists and calling scripts are designed to maximize response rates.
To help you get the most impact from your voter contact, we make our services as affordable as possible for your campaign. Check out the products and services we provide and contact us to discuss rates.
We look forward to working with you to get every progressive voter to the polls!
Sure there is a conflict of interest. But what I’ve learned in my time as a GOPer that having a conflict of interest is as American as creationism and apple pie. Why, my good ol’ buddy Scott Walker is a shining light to all of us who say that conflict of interest is admirable and should be written right into all state constitutions and the US constitution. Heck, one of the first things Scottie did when he became Governor is slide in a nice treat for one of his big bank rollers: His budget repair bill allows him to sell Wisconsin owned power plants to interested parties for as low as a penny and then let that company start charging back the energy produced at unregulated rates. YeeHa! Now that’s smart thinking! You foolish Dems are all busy about making sure some slag teacher gets her pension in 20 years. Meanwhile, my boys are coming up with imaginative ways to make money through conflict of interest! God bless the GOP!
A typical, unhinged Leftist. Gotta love those un-substantiated charges. Methinks you’re less of “GOPer” than you are a “Leftist Goober.” Unless and until, you can provide evidence of the truth and substance of your statements, you’re more Cocaine Hash than Neuron FLash.
Using the Federal recusal standards doesn’t make sense… she’s a state judge, and thus has to follow the Wisconsin recusal standards found at Wis SCR 60.04 and Wis. Stat. 757.19.
This standard is VERY loose. As a trial judge, Justice Roggensack made decisions in cases where her husband’s business (a bank) was a party. Her decisions effected her family’s bottom line. The current court also stated that direct campaign donations from a party do not serve as a disqualifying factor. 757.19 is explicit that dealings with a political party are not a factor for disqualification.
Sumi is regarded as a fair but conservative leaning judge compared to some of her Dane Co. peers. She, like David Prosser in the same year, was appointed by a Republican governor (Thompson) to her seat on the bench. Given the governor does not need to consult with anyone to make that type of appointment, one usually needs to be active within the party or be owed a big favor (like the ex-Dem Senators who voted against the state CBAs) to get an appointment.