New York Times Asks Court to Stack the Deck

In today's New York Times, the Editorial Board asks the conservative judges in Wisconsin to recuse themselves from ruling on the legality of an investigation of Scott Walker's campaign.  Why?  Because they received large donations from conservative groups in support of their elections.

Now, I agree that allowing large contributions to judge's campaigns is a terrible idea and presents a possible conflict of interest.  But how about the liberal Wisconsin judges?  How many of them received large donations from liberal interest groups, especially the public employee unions?  Since most of the controversy around and opposition to Governor Walker stems from his beat down of the public employee unions, a reasonable, non-biased observer would note that judges who received large donations from those unions also face a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves.

But, as we know, the New York Times Editorial Board is neither reasonable not unbiased.  They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the mainstream Democratic Party.

If both sides recused themselves "honorably", there may be no judge left to rule on the case.  Which is why it isn't going to happen.  The Times knows that, and is just making political theatre.  When the Republican House stupidly repeals Obamacare for the gazillionth time, the Times rightly points out that they are wasting time and money and partaking of pointless theatre.  But so is the Times, just for the other side.