Michael Gableman, who cast the deciding vote in two cases in favor of parties represented by the law firm that provided him free legal services, is well-versed in the rhetoric of the political right which funded his election.
The GOP journal, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. (WPRI), is running a piece by Gableman adapted from a talk Gableman gave at the annual WPRI dinner in November 2011.
Gableman asserts his duty to "faithfully apply the law," And he points to several cases written by the GOP majority as examples, the most recent of which is Ozanne v. Fitzgerald (more commonly referred to as the Budget Repair Bill case).
The so-called Budget Repair Bill was opposed by every legislative Democrat, supported by every legislative Republican, not legally signed into law by Scott Walker; and then given the judicial thumbs-up by every GOP justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a decision that eviscerated Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law.
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's dissent in Ozanne blasted the partisan ruling: The majority " ... reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."
As Abrahamson wrote:
[T]he Attorney General asserts that the legislature need not abide by the Open Meetings Law; that the legislature can choose when and if it will follow the Open Meetings Law; and that courts cannot enforce the Open Meetings Law against the legislature and any of its committees. ...This did not sit well with GOP justices, and Gableman's publishing his remarks to the GOP organization in the GOP journal is a political response against the Rule of Law by today's Republican Party that is so anti-intellectual and corrupt Joe McCarthy might blush.
¶96 The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law. They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891. This case law recognizes a court's power to review legislative actions in enacting laws when constitutional directives are at issue.
¶127 .... Unreasoned judgments breed contempt for the law. The majority, by sacrificing honest reasoning, leads us down a pernicious path. The order today departs from fundamental principles. It fails to abide by the court's Constitutional authority and its own rules and procedures and harms the rights of the people from whom our authority derives.