John Doe Cases Are Ethical Tests for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices

"This week, six law professors from around the country filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying some of the justices may be barred from participating in the [Scott Walker campaign-Wisconsin Club for Growth-and other campaign coordination schemes] case under ethical rules."

A 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision [Hugh M. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc.] "clearly established that under the U.S. Constitution, significant independent expenditures in a judicial election require recusal under circumstances where there is a serious risk of bias," they wrote in the brief submitted by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law." (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

So, does this mean Wisconsin Supreme Court members who received $100,000s from the litigants are necessarily corrupt, crooked and dishonorable if they fail to recuse from the consolidated John Doe cases? (Fischer, PRWatch)

Yes, it does.