« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi & Her (SEIU, AFL-CIO) Political Operative Son

There's nothing like a judge's love for her son to cloud her otherwise-cloudy judgement.

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  March 21st, 2011 at 12:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

On Friday, unions scored a temporary victory to maintain their ability to collect union dues from Wisconsin public employees when Judge Maryann Sumi (the same judge who refused to order striking teachers back to work in February) issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the implementation of Wisconsin’s new law governing public-sector unions.

Via the Wall Street Journal:

Judge Maryann Sumi said a lawsuit filed by the Dane County district attorney had enough merit for her to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the bill while she reviews the case.

This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case. You see, Maryann Sumi has a clear conflict of interest. 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.

Jacob “Jake” Sinderbrand, Sumi’s son [see page nine here], runs a company called Left Field Strategies, a firm that works on political campaigns.

We are a firm dedicated to maximizing efficient and effective voter contact in a modern campaign atmosphere. Specializing in doorknocking and phone bank strategies, we use state-of-the-art campaign resources to ensure that no doorknock or phone call is wasted as you campaign for office. We bring extensive experience as professional canvassers and callers, who have knocked on tens of thousands of doors, and have cut hundreds of thousands of doors and phone numbers for various issue and electoral campaigns.

As a “lifelong political actvist,” it appears Sumi’s apple didn’t fall far from the tree. According to Sinderland’s bio on his website:

A lifelong political activist, Jake Sinderbrand got his start as a volunteer doorknocker, and has years of experience training both volunteers and canvassing staff. Jake graduated from Macalester College cum laude with a degree in political science, specializing in American political structures. He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle. Jake’s expertise in canvass planning and turf strategy helped these organizations to have among the most successful field operations in Minnesota.

While FreedomEden has screenshots of Sinderbrand’s facebook page, one ironic twist to this whole sordid affair is that Maryann Sumi apparently gave a speech in 2007 entitled “Judicial Decision Making: Activism or Accountability?”

Clearly, both Sumi and her son are activists, which is why Sumi should be removed from the entire Wisconsin matter.

Photo credit: Nicholas Nikolic

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • lineholder

    I had posted on another diary that Sumi wasn’t a far left liberal….and that may be true about her as a judge. But it looks like I was wrong regarding how her ruling plays into the context of this situation.

    So, are there any indications at this point that Walker’s team will challenge her judgment on this basis? Can they do so?

    • lineholder

      http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_872e7154-53e0-11e0-8a0b-001cc4c002e0.html

      • lineholder

        DOJ appealing Sumi’s ruling
        http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/03/wisconsin-dept-of-justice-appeals-sumi-decision/

        In the above link, the DOJ was basing an appeal due to the Mar25th implementation date and the fact that Sumi won’t be back from vacation until the 28th. That was posted on the wheeler report at 1:06. p.m. today.

        So at 4:31 p.m. today, a copy of this letter from AG LaFollette is posted:
        http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0321/0321secofstate.pdf

        And the results of the lawsuit against Walker that was made by Isthmus newspaper and WI AP media came back today. Of all the emails received from inside WI, the results were 55% for the bill and 42% opposed.
        http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=32638
        http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ca97c286-fe25-5074-8cb0-5f9a2c240df8.html

  • joepyne

    “This is a problem. Judge Maryann Sumi should have recused herself entirely from the Wisconsin battle due to her inability to be neutral in this case.”

    Yes, it is a problem, so what will be done about it in the Republican led house, senate, and Republican Governor?

    Crickets chirping …

    • http://theundergroundconservative.wordpress.com pdigaudio

      Considering Republican men tend to be girlie men, probably nothing. The GOP surrenders almost as well as the French.

  • akfroman

    I don’t understand why it is taking Walker so long to take action. It took him forever to pass the collective bargaining separately from the budget bill. Now he is fighting this judge’s decision in the courts, instead of just re-passing the bill following the exact letter of the open meetings law. Speed is critical; the longer this confrontation is carried out, the longer the unions are able to skew the media and rewrite contracts.

  • jayjay501

    This argument doesn’t make sense to me. What is the article saying? That the judge is biased because she has a son who works for a union? That she should have been vetted beforehand, and disqualified on that basis? If that’s the case, then don’t we need to interrogate every judge on every case and quiz them about the affiliations and jobs of every member of their family? We don’t do that currently, but should we start?
    And where do we draw the line? Would it be ok if she had a nephew in a union, but not her son? What if she had a daughter who worked for Walker’s campaign – would that mean the judge was biased the other way and should be removed from the case? Can someone please explain the logic in this? I’m genuinely curious.

    • bk

      is that the same people screaming that Clarence Thomas needs to recuse himself from anything related to Obamacare (because his wife did work for people opposed to Obamacare) see no problem whatsoever in Wisconsin.

      • jayjay501

        …it’s flawed logic whatever way you come at it. Everyone has an embarrassing relative. Carter had his brother. Bush’s daughter did him no favours when she was arrested for underage drinking.

        If you are going to attack people, you should do it on their record, not someone else’s.

    • Martin Knight

      If a close family relation is directly employed by a party before the court, a judge is supposed to recuse himself or herself from the case.

      • jayjay501

        Even if this was so, which I don’t accept, the article says “FORMER lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council”.

        So not directly employed at all.

        • bk
          • jayjay501

            That might well be another interesting story, but it has nothing to do with this specific case. Accusing a judge of bias is a very serious charge, and you need to have proper facts to back it up.
            Can anyone prove direct conflict of interest in this specific case? Is the judge likely to profit financially from her ruling? Is there a clear and unambiguous reason for her to recuse herself?
            If the answers to these questions are “I don’t know” then we should leave her alone until the evidence proves otherwise.

          • bk

            but not for anyone else to do the same. Now I understand.

            Your other scenarios were of the “where do you draw a line” sort, and I think I’m starting to see where that line is for you.

          • powertothepeople

            in your argument and it is obvious that either you are not that smart or a leftist plant……….or even both.

            You asked a question in your original post:

            “Would it be ok if she had a nephew in a union, but not her son? What if she had a daughter who worked for Walker

          • jayjay501

            …like for instance, “a child who works for the campaign of one of the litigants would cause her to be disqualified. Even a moron knows that.”
            You might know this: I don’t. Again: please quote the specific rule the judge has broken. Then people will take your argument seriously.

            I’ll help you out: someone mentioned Clarence Thomas earlier and this is the federal law I understand that his enemies cite when they accuse him of conflict of interest: “A judge should avoid any case “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

            The law requires recusal when the judge knows that “his spouse

          • powertothepeople

            since you seem unable to comprehend. anytime a judge may seem compromised or be deemed unable to rule without bias, they are to remove themselves from the case.

            And if you do not understand how there would be a problem with a judge having a child who works for one of the litigants, then you are hopeless. But again, I think it is more a leftist idiot who signed on to this site to start trouble. Can not be more clearer than that. Since you raised the nephew issue, it was not an answer directly relating to this case, simply a rebuttal to your nonsense. Nephew and son are two very different things and have to be judged on their own merit. Since it is not her nephew that is the problem, you raising the issue had nothing to do with the discussion. But if you are unable to mentally grasp why a judge should not preside over a case where her own son (hypothetically and in the case) is so involved in the dealing of one of the litigants, there is no hope in trying to explain it to you and you being able to understand.

            Now on to more of your nonsense:

            You ask can I make an argument that she would be biased due to her sons activity, political activism, and employment with the unions in this case and considering it is a self answering question, again I must assume either you are an idiot or simply here to cause trouble. I nor anyone else have to prove she is biased, it is the appearance that is all that matters. No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is biased unless they found a smoking gun. But the fact the such a close member of her household is that actively involved with one of the litigants gives enough of an appearance of possible bias that she should not hear the case.

            Profit financially, irrelevant! Making money from a case is not the only thing that can disqualify a judge.

            Lastly, not her to debate you as you have no position. I do not waste my time with people who come here only to start trouble and type nonsense. And since it is obvious from your shallow pool of posting that your purpose here is to cause trouble, me respecting you is not going to happen. And since it is obvious from your nonsense that you are a lefty, not sure why you take offense from me exposing that.

            By the way, financial interests or personal gain is not the only reason for a judge to be removed and you know it. You are playing semantics again and it is not working.

            “The law requires recusal when the judge knows that

          • powertothepeople

            please note the law does not define immediate family as having to be a spouse. Nice try, but you fail!

      • lilolady

        Once again Martin, you have nailed the heart of the issue. It is the
        responsibility of the judge to be aware of her position, If she fails
        in recognizing this simple fact, she deserves to be disbarred for lack
        of legal propriety.

  • peg_c

    This lefty incestuous conflict of interest situation is SOP for the Dems and in fact it is the very basis, along with the union money-laundering scheme, of their party machinery. They would never be successful but for this exact type of corruption. This perfectly illustrates why they are determined to fill every judicial position with a lefty and why activist judges on the left are so necessary to Dem power.

  • jayjay501

    First off, we haven’t yet established that this is a “lefty” activist judge.

    You have taken the writer’s argument at face value – that because she has a son that once worked for a union, she must be biased. This does not necessarily follow.

    Newt Gingrich has a lesbian activist sister. Does this negate his positions? Of course not.

    • Martin Knight

      Newt Gingrich has a lesbian activist sister. Does this negate his positions? Of course not.

      Apples and oranges.

    • joepyne

      “First off, we haven

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      SCR 60.03 (2)

      A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge may not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

      http://www.wicourts.gov/about/committees/judicialcommission/code.htm?content=pdf&seqNo=1070

  • jgravelle

    [ With apologies to Frank Sinatra and the entire cast of "Guys and Dolls" ]

    They promise us this, they promise us that
    they legislate everything under the sun;
    Then they lose the majority in twenty-ten
    and they head out of state on the run;

    When the GOP pass a bill
    that the Democrats can-not kill
    Do you wonder who will?

    Call on Maryann Sumi, Sumi
    Lefty Judge Sumi, she’d love to;
    She’s in their pocket, they’re on her docket,
    sheeeee’d lovvvvve tooooooo–

    -jjg

  • ohtimtim

    what is the law in Wisconsin that allows a county judge authority over a state legislature. I know that here in NY it would be unthinkable.

  • edwyrd

    immediantly after her decision.
    that should indicate her affiliation all too clearly for the liberally myopic

    • carolina

      My understanding is that she will make her decision after she returns from vacation. She froze implementation, but did not issue a decison……. so everything is just on hold until she returns.

      • edwyrd

        liberal control of the countrys’ judicial system

      • edwyrd

        liberal control of the countrys’ judicial system

  • http://www.barrypopik.com barrypopik

    Monday, the beginning of the last hour of the show, and Mark Levin is reading this article on the air!

    • fedsocdan
  • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

    Based on what’s here, it would be wholly inappropriate to require or expect the judge to recuse herself. You’re making pretty much the same mistake that Common Cause and various other left-wing groups and individuals are making in their crusade against Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, trying to get the DOJ to investigate them and retroactively force recusal from the Citizens United decision (see here if you aren’t familiar with this: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/reformers-recusal-double-standard).

    Recusal would only be appropriate if her son were a party to the challenge. Being part of the broader movement that opposes Walker’s budget reform bill is not sufficient, nor should it be, otherwise it would be just about impossible to find any “impartial” judges for cases tinged with politics, as most judges are “linked” to political activism in one way or another.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org
    http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

    • streiff

      we are all such idiots here, we are so lucky to have you drop by and educate us. It is rare that a blog is blessed by a multidisciplinary savant such as yourself

      • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

        Seriously, are you utterly incapable of being even remotely civil to anyone who dares to disagree with you? Do you automatically assume that anyone who believes something you do not is necessarily insulting your intelligence? That must be quite frustrating for you, having almost everyone insult your intelligence on a regular basis…

        Oh, and I’ll note once again (seems like we have this little discussion quite often) that you have completely failed to even attempt to address a single statement I made. You are, if you want, free to hop on the bandwagon of absurd claims of judicial recusal standards, which is right now being guided by Common Cause and their allies in an attempt to get Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to recuse themselves from hearing the challenge to Obamacare, and get Citizens United overturned. I suspect that’s not where most Redstate readers are.

        Sean Parnell
        President
        Center for Competitive Politics
        http://www.campaignfreedom.org
        http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

        • fpete13527

          LUR and Streiff’s analysis’ fit well and most that I know from RedState see it that way also. Yours – not so much.

          • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

            My biggest objection to streiff’s rant is that he, once again, seems to be taking the position that anyone who disagrees with him is necessarily insulting his intelligence.

            Oh, since you’re hopping on the Common Cause bandwagon, seeking the recusal of Scalia and Thomas if/when the challenges to ObamaCare come up, you might want to check these out:

            http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=9039899

            http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/261633/robert-reich-s-reckless-attack-thomas-and-scalia-part-2-ed-whelan

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50757.html

            Should give you a fuller understanding of the ramifications of adopting the recusal standards demanded here.

            Sean Parnell
            President
            Center for Competitive Politics
            http://www.campaignfreedom.org
            http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

          • streiff

            I objecting to your congenital asshattery and inability to engage in any conversation that doesn’t revolve around how much you know and how little anyone else knows even to the extent of burning your own house down to prove the point.

            For someone who imagines themselves involved in politics your bonejarring ignorance of how politics is conducted is instructive.

        • streiff

          I was simply noting your usual “I’m a genius because I fellate Brad Smith” tone

          • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

            I guess I should have groveled and begged for forgiveness for disagreeing with LUR, and suggesting that what was offered wasn’t right. Because, when you disagree with someone, I’m sure that’s what you do, right?

            Probably best that you take your crude schoolyard taunts and inability to deal with anyone who disagrees with you elsewhere. I’m pretty sure one of the rules around here is “Be respectful, or be banned.”

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You’re wrong a lot around here.

            The rules are posted. What you cite is not among them. However it is against the rules to go around trying to moderate other commenters, or in this case, you as a commenter trying to moderate a moderator.

            So you’re breaking rule #4. You might want to quit while you’re behind.

          • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

          • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

          • earlgrey

            You aren’t the first and won’t be the last. Red State isn’t the only site that will remove comments that don’t meet their standards.

          • powertothepeople

            Got to love it……………