Overnight Engine-Starter: Wis. Judge Sumi's Conflict(s) of Interest
Cindy at Fairly Conservative and Mary at FreedomEden broke this story yesterday. RedState, Gateway Pundit, and Doug Ross, among others, have helped promulgate it. I'd rate the odds of the establishment press doing anything with the information at nearly zero.
I have a potential tidbit to add.
FreedomEden's Mary writes: "Jake Sinderbrand, son of Judge Maryann Sumi, poses a bit of a problem for his mother." Sumi is the county judge who on Friday temporarily blocked implementation of the collective bargaining-related law passed by the Wisconsin legislature and signed by Governor Scott Walker.
Why that matters is after the jump.
You see, Jake Sinderbrand is "a former field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council." Both organizations have members who are employed in Wisconsin's public sector.
That's already a pretty clear conflict of interest, one would think. My tidbit may add more fuel to the fire.
Maryann Sumi's husband/partner, as evidenced here and elsewhere, is Carl Sinderbrand (who, as a side note, is also Chairman of the environmental advocacy group Clean Wisconsin).
Visiting web directories (I'm not providing a link lest one accuse me of violating privacy, even thoug Wisconsin lefties do not have a track record of similar respect), one finds that one of Carl Sinderbrand's three listed physical addresses is the same as Jake Sinderbrand's; the other two appear to be office building suites. I could not find a web directory physical address for Maryann Sumi, but if she lives in the same home as Carl, it would appear that she also lives in the same home as Jake. This would compound the level of conflicted interests.
Jake's Facebook page, which reveals that he "worked at Left Field Strategies (Campaign Consultant/Field Strategist)," is a lefty shrine, including a mock-up of Governor Walker as a "Dope," a sarcastic take-off on the Obama "Hope" picture so popular two years ago:
As Doug Ross wrote: "Long story short: Judge Sumi has a dog in the hunt."
A fairly rabid one, it would appear.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
You're not responsible for your kids' affiliations
Submitted by lgeubank on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 1:24am.
That may be evidence of where her mindset tends, but it's not a real conflict of interest. It's not two roles played by her that conflict.Hmmm.
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:00am.
Role 1: Judge in collective bargaining case
Role2: Matriarch of union leadership family
Try again, Sparky.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Wrong...
Submitted by C-townGiant on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:40am.
That is a textbook definition of conflict of interest. You saying that if a conservative state judge outlawed abortion in the county he presides in because his daughter is pregnant and wants out of it, you would not see a conflict of interest?Extrajudicial Conduct The
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:59am.
Extrajudicial Conduct
The American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges to engage in extrajudicial activities, as long as such activities do not interfere with a judge's capacity. For instance, the Code of Conduct prohibits judges from participation in discriminatory actions, organizations, or jokes, since such activities could indicate prejudice to others.
Fiduciary or Familial Interest
The clearest instances of conflicts of interest arise when judges docket cases that involve parties who have family or fiduciary connections to the judge. Judges are generally prohibited from holding fiduciary positions (such as executor, trustee, administrator, or guardian) except for members of their immediate family; if holding such a position at the time of appointment, they must divest themselves of fiduciary obligation within a year.
Tell that to Anthony Weiner
Submitted by Hologram5 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:53am.
Tell that to Anthony Weiner about Justice Thomas ok? Explain that to him and see what he says...Or, simply stick a fork in your ear
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:58am.
Trying to hold a reasonable debate with the petulant Congressman from New York is just as painful as physically harming oneself, and considerably less satisfying.
Well then by your reasoning Clarence Thomas
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:47pm.
Is NOT responsible for any affiiations that Ginny Thomas has with any outside group. So are you saying that your agreeing with the Conservatives that he (Justice Thomas) DOES NOT have to RECUSE himself when OBAMA CARE comes before the court?......... Yeah chew on that there genius..........Judge Sumi is No Clarence Thomas
Submitted by neutron on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 2:27am.
Since the left is crying for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the eventual Obamacare case because his wife was once a long time ago employed by a firm that had a side-business interest in consulting for healthcare providers, then Judge Sumi should recuse herself for her husband/partner's current and on-going leftist advocacy activities, and her son (and cohabitant) activities for two public employee unions. Funny how the lefties don't look at the glaring conflict of interest of Sotomayor and Kagan on Obamacare.It's a one-way street
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:54am.
To the MSM, conflict of interest only involves conservatives.
The Left sees any potential for a ruling against their agenda as a conflict of (their) interest.
Conflict of interest
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 5:57am.
in a leftist's eyes is like racism to Al Sharpton. As long as you're on their side, you can't commit it."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Bullseye!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:45am.
.Hopefully there is no
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:05am.
Hopefully there is no conflict of interest, however the judge may be swayed by union interests.Liberals don't have to recuse
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:36am.
Liberals don't have to recuse themselves for conflict of interest, because their personal interests n-e-e-e-ever <eyeroll> interfere with their professional judgment!
Besides, that doesn't matter, if their interests are on the "right" side, which they always are.
Never a dull moment
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:56am.
when it comes to the power, and abuse of that power with the left.
Bizarre and Unusual Ruling
Submitted by libBuster on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:15am.
Judge Sumi's ruling is very unusual. Courts generally do not concern themselves with the legislative process itself. Rulings must be based on the actual statute, not the process used to pass the legislation. Using a State Law as the basis of striking down a State Law is also novel. Sumi has violated the most fundemental separation of powers issue. The ruling raises concerns under Article 4 Section 4.What the ruling is going to
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:21am.
What the ruling is going to be is procedure not any legislation. I find it strange a local judge is ruling on this.Jurisidction
Submitted by libBuster on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:53am.
I don't know how a local DA has jurisdiction over this matter. It would seem like such a challenge must come from the Secretary of State. Courts generally don't consider the process of enacting a piece of legislation when the constitutionality is reviewed.Conflict of interest?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:08am.
I don't see no stinking conflict of interest.
Being a liberal means being always on the right side of EVERY issue, so how can you be wrong.
They're so much smarter and ethical than everyone else on the planet so they owe it to the rest of us to tell us what the hell to do in every situation.
So "Lean Forward" an enjoy it people. Either that or you get get really pissed off and go after them with everything you have.
No compromise, no retreat, no surrender. Just crush them!
Leftist judges
Submitted by JoeA101010 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:41pm.
Leftist judges see their duty as upholding left-wing policies, not upholding the law. Therefore, it is no surprise that they never even consider conflicts of interest. Just as it is with Obama and his like, the ends justify the means. This is why we need to keep electing conservatives. We need to dominate not only the legislatures and executive offices, but also the judiciary. One hopes the American people have seen the clear choice these past few years, despite 95% of the referees (media) doing their best to fix the game.The Unions know the threat
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 2:55pm.
They live and die on this hill, and the Democrats know it. The corruption gravy train is their life blood... So who is going to do anything about this?The Supreme Court operates
Submitted by alabamawingnut on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 2:57pm.
under a different set of rules and codes than all other courts in the country. It is, after all, the Supreme Court. Once a conflict of interest case is decided by the Court. It is over...In other words, what court does a claiment in a judicial conflict of interest case go beyond the Supreme Court?I must have missed it.
Submitted by phryingphish on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 3:34pm.
When did this go to the SCOTUS?