I was originally working on this as an update to the post below, but it kind of grew too big. And since I'm really curious for an answer to the question above (and as phrased below), I thought I'd pull it out and give it its own post.
I'm not sure how Patrick McIlheran can say that Judge Ziegler's ethical lapses are just "evidence of her sloppiness" and that we merely "conflate[d] it into a scandal." This is not sloppy, unless you mean that kind of sloppy wherein someone deliberately chooses not to follow the rules--think McGuire and steroids, Troha and campiagn finance, Paris Hilton and good taste.
An interesting parallel might be the case of Robert Zellner, the Cedarbug teacher who violated his code of conduct, once, for 67 seconds, on a weekend. There is no question that Zellner was wrong, and yesterday a circuit court agreed that the school district should have fired him.
Ziegler has violated her code literally scores of times, in the direct execution of her duties--not just on a weekend with no one around. But to the righties commenting on Zellner's case--and to many at the same time defending Ziegler--he should be run out on a rail.
So here's my question: Are those defending Ziegler willing to give Zellner a pass for his sloppiness? Or, conversely, are people condemning Zellner willing to accept that Ziegler deserves the scrutiny that Zellner got?