Wisconsin "Judge" has ties to AFL CIO and SEIU
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
March 21, 2011 2:57am CST
Judge Maryann Sumi, the Madison "judge" who placed a TRO against implementation of the Budget Repair Law has two major conflicts of interest in this case.
Both her husband and her son are union activists. Her son, Jake Sinderbrand was lead field manager with the AFL-CIO, and data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.
In a bit of historical irony. Rule 93 (one of the rules cited by the Senate Republicans) was written in 1983 by two of the Fugitive 14 Senators.
Read Jake's own words at his facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jake-Sinderbrand/19401396?sk=wall
3 people like this
2 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
21 Mar 11
The same people who are screaming that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from ruling on the Healthcare law because of his wife's political activities, will find no problem whatsoever with this.
Honestly, I don't know if it is a good idea to vet every member of every judge's family before allowing them to rule on cases, just to be sure there is no possible conflict. But for us to feel comfortable in this, we have to know that we have judges who believe that their duty is to interpret the law without prejudice or bias and not to practice judicial activism.
Obviously she has some close ties to unions through family. More importantly, we can see evidence of her own political leanings in that she supported and campaigned for a liberal judge that was ultimately defeated. But none of that should have bearing on how she rules. The problem is that it probably does, not because she wants to please her family but because she has liberal bias and wants to interpret the law as generously towards the liberal side as she can. Humans often fall short when it comes to avoiding personal bias.
This will fall on appeal. Probably best if the liberals defend her ties, it will make it harder for them to try to remove Thomas in the event of a constitutional review of the healthcare bill.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
21 Mar 11
True. If the law, the rules of the Wisconsin Legislature or the Wisconsin State Constitution could be used to back her decision in any way, we could give her the benefit of the doubt. However, since she didn't, we can't.
It was nothing more than judicial activism and pleasing mama's little boy.
1 person likes this
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
21 Mar 11
What we expect from judges is that they recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest like this.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
22 Mar 11
Or at least be more ethical than the criminals who appear in their court.
@GanChoSan3 (25)
• United States
26 Mar 11
Since her argument for the TRO had no basis in law, it is just an attempt at judicial activism in order to try to further progressive policies from the left