A judge in the Wisconsin court of appeals has taken aim at a controversial court jesting routine.
Judges have used court jests before, but this time they are taking aim at Wisconsin’s highest court, the supreme court records show.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court records show that during oral arguments in a case that involved a state law that prohibits judges from commenting on cases, Wisconsin Supreme Justice Mike Ziegler wrote, “Judge Zieglinski believes that it is important to highlight that he and other Wisconsin judges are not involved in the deliberations of a case and do not have access to any of the records, evidence or opinions of the Court.”
The Wisconsin supreme court has ruled on a number of cases involving judges’ interactions with the public, including a case involving a judge’s appearance in court and the public’s right to know what the judge is hearing in a criminal trial.
In June, the Wisconsin Supreme Law Court ruled in favor of the right of Wisconsin’s court of appeal to be notified about motions that the court made in its decision, which was filed in response to a challenge to the state’s ban on a Wisconsin gun registry.
The ruling said the court has a duty to make those motions public, and the court’s role is to decide whether those motions are correct.
The court has not taken the step of posting the motions publicly since the case, which concerned the constitutionality of a state ban on gun ownership, was taken up by the high court.
The high court’s decision said that judges’ comments about cases and the proceedings in which they are heard can be viewed on the public record.
Ziegler and other justices have taken to social media to mock the court and have criticized the Wisconsin supreme courts for taking such a strong position in the case.
The state Supreme Court was originally ordered to issue a public record order in a motion that questioned the constitution validity of a Wisconsin law that requires a person to be licensed to own a gun to buy ammunition.
The order was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in October, but a judge temporarily stayed that order and appealed.
Zigler said in his opinion on the case that he was confident the public would be able to access the motion before the court.
The high court has been asked to review the motion in a separate case, but the state court did not rule on that case until February, according to the court records.
The state supreme court said in its ruling that it was too early to issue the order, and that the public may be able see the motion at some point in the future.
The issue was raised in a brief filed with the Wisconsin appellate court by the Wisconsin chapter of the National Rifle Association, which argued that Wisconsin judges should not be able comment on cases in court.