As usual, the New York Times editorial board gets things backwards. Here’s the first sentence of its recent editorial in support of a recusal motion that it supposedly hasn’t read (as it was filed under seal):

If the toxic effects of outsize spending in judicial elections were not already evident, the fiasco playing out in the Wisconsin Supreme Court should erase any doubt.

For the reasons I explain in this post, that sentence should instead read something like:

If the toxic effects of prosecutorial abuse of campaign-finance laws for political purposes were not already evident, the Kafka-esque fiasco that has been playing out in Wisconsin should erase any doubt.