Wisconsin Supreme Court justices moved quickly Wednesday to elect a new chief following certification of a constitutional amendment that ended seniority as the sole determinant, even as a federal lawsuit was pending seeking to delay replacing longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
Abrahamson objected to the email vote making Justice Patience Roggensack the chief justice, and Abrahamson continues to believe she holds the position, her attorney Robert Peck said in a letter filed with U.S. District Court late Wednesday.
Four justices voted via email to replace Abraham-son with Roggensack as chief justice, Peck said. Roggensack accepted the position, even though Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Patrick Crooks objected, Peck said in the letter.
Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Annette Ziegler and Roggensack voted to elect Roggensack, Peck said.
Roggensack did not immediately return a message seeking comment. A court spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a call or email seeking comment from other justices.
If the vote stands, Roggensack would take over for Abrahamson, a member of the court since 1976 and chief justice the past 19 years.
Abrahamson, 81, has sued to try to block any change until her court term ends in four years. The next hearing in her lawsuit is May 15. An attorney for Roggensack and four other justices had said they believed once the amendment was certified, there was a vacancy for chief justice that could be filled at any point.
The justices had not said publicly how quickly they would act.
Bradley, who along with Abrahamson forms the two-justice liberal minority on the court, told The Associated Press that any voting to elect a new chief justice was premature.
“The case is currently pending before a federal judge,” Bradley said. “The issue he must decide is whether the constitutional amendment is to be applied retroactively and as a result any vote now appears premature because it’s unclear until we get the judge’s decision whether a vacancy even exists.”
Bradley noted that the judge last week in a hearing had urged restraint, saying the fewer changes in who is chief justice the better.
The move to select a new chief came after the Wisconsin elections board earlier Wednesday certified results of the April 7 election, including the voter-approved amendment on chief justice seniority. The amendment, which gives justices the power to pick who is chief, was widely seen as a move against Abrahamson when legislators approved it for the ballot.
Abrahamson’s attorney said in his letter to the judge that Abrahamson, Bradley and Crooks objected to the email balloting to make Roggensack chief justice, questioning whether it was an appropriate implementation of the new amendment.
“Ordinarily, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would, on an important procedure like this one, agree to a procedure and vote only in person in conference,” Peck wrote. “The court, of course, has no procedure for election of a chief justice.”
Most of the chief justice’s duties are administrative and ceremonial, but the person does serve as the head of the state court system. The chief justice’s vote holds no more sway on the court than any other justice.
The court is nearing the end of its term for the year and most of the work left will occur behind the scenes as justices work on written decisions for cases heard earlier this year.
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(204) comments
I am sooo sick and tired of this Republican administration!! Every chance they can they erode the voice of the people they are supposed to serve! It's always about lies and dirty politics! Those of you who are "happy" about this kind of stuff are ignorant about the meaning of Democracy. If you in any way shape or form believe these Republicans are working for the benefit of we the people you are suckers! I am appalled with their disdain for the people of this state!
I must be ignorant about democracy then because I always thought getting the majority of votes in an election meant a candidate or idea won subject to any judicial review (and don't bother to lecture me about the electoral college). Silly me.
so, you think that changing the Constitution with less than 20% of the eleigible electorate voting is acceptable or a good thing thing?
Did the repubs run on taking local control away from the counties and municipalities?
Why, yes, yes, I do. Thanks for asking. I also think using spell check before posting is a good thing.
The Dems need to get better at the whole democracy thing. For Shirley to ignore the voice of the people comes off as arrogant, just as the recall did. Why would not Shirley say, " I serve at the pleasure of the people of Wisconsin and my fellow justices." As for reactions, you can't keep losing elections and then refer to the people you need to sway as "low information voters" and expect to win the next election. The Dems need to go to work on themselves and stifle their self-destructive rhetoric that demeans Wisconsin voters. Again, we went for Obama and Tammy. But in statewide and legislative elections, the Dems are a hot mess, much of it their own making.
The Dems need to get better at the whole democracy thing. For Shirley to ignore the voice of the people comes off as arrogant, just as the recall did.
Really? Did you read a few posts down? healthcare, immigration, gay rights, abortion rights. I'm delighted at least some conservatives appear to support the voice of the people. Please inform your conservative congress and senate members of your wish.
Thank you!
do you really believe that anywhere near a majority of the people in this state understood that the purpose of the amendment was simply to depose a chief justice the repubs didn't care for?
"Voice of the People"? That's a hyperbolic stretch if I ever heard one. The actual "voice of the people" was silence, which can be interpreted as acquiescence, apathy, or perhaps paralysis through sheer political"dumbfoundedness" or exhaustion. But approval? Certainly not. What the Republicans are better at is not democracy; it's taking advantage of holes in the rules of the game, and manipulating voters' perceptions with misleading campaign ads and misinformation. Aka, political marketing. If you think that this is democracy, then we are all in sad shape.
Democracy? Please define.
If democracy is only showing up at the polls, perhaps you have it wrong.
Democracy demands that we talk and work things out, then go to the polls. We have none of this now. Probably haven't seen this for a long while.
Recent legislation has been slipped through quickly with little input or discussion from those who oppose. Minds are made up and legislation passes. No wonder what has passed is poorly conceived.
We people need a more active role in discussing our governance instead of letting the misfits in the statehouse dictate to us what it ought to be.
Democracy transcends Republican or Democrat or party. It has to be the very essence of our nation or else we are doomed.
Democracy thing? Since when does anyone take a position immediately following election results are confirmed? Even Walker couldn't take over until Doyle's term was over. (I fear he would like to change that too but ...) this really doesn't have anything to do w/Republical vs Democrat so maybe stifling needs to be practiced overall
This tells us everything we need to know about Patience Rogensack. For a Wisconsin supreme court justice to involve herself in this coup, which she surely understands as such...is unconscionable-but then, we have already saw that during the supreme strangler investigation, she was willing to purger herself while obstructing a lawful assault investigation, so we shouldn't be too surprised. I do wonder why they didn't choose the admitted felon and "small man syndrome" suffering Prosser for chief justice, but perhaps, in a rare moment of self examination, even they realized that that would be going too far.
This is not "democracy". This is manipulation of process and a power play- because they can. It's antithetical to the meaning of democratic procedures.
So I'm betting in your world, democracy means the government does everything your way.
Nope. "Democracy" means having a fair and transparent process with sufficient notice to citizens so they can express views to legislators, legislators who are responsive to citizen concerns and who take constitutional issues into account when proposing legislation, and legislation that is widely circulated so that voters understand the implications of what they are voting for.
None of that happened here.
witness2012, what part of this process was not constitutional? The legislators responded to my concerns. I voted for the amendment and I fully understood the implications. I go back to contending your beef isn't about process, it's about outcome.
So you define democracy as any election that agrees with you? If not, then it's fraud and corruption? Dogs and cats sleeping together?
Nor, I understand you like to talk about messaging and I understand why, and I'm sure I would agree with you on the importance of messaging. But when you identify a problem -- Dems lose elections -- while you refuse to acknowledge the role of additional aspects or contributing factors in creating that problem, you not only fail to solve the problem, you actively prevent other people from learning how to solve it.
I wish we had had this messaging conversation in the last legislative session, which was the first time the legislature passed a resolution to amend the state constitution solely in order to take vindictive and/or politically opportunistic action against a single person. I would love to know what your advice would have been how to prevent the legislature from doing it a second time, or how to counter the hundreds of thousands of WMC or CFG advertising that would follow. Why do you only weigh in when you have a chance to slam Dems after the fact for messaging?
Mary. Are you saying Dems have never taken political money? That they have not gerrymandered? You use excuses to chastise me. Speak to the issues I raised. You know where I stand on campaign finance reform and other key issues. But stop making excuses. You know politics is a tough business....and competitive. Dems need to move past excuses. Quickly.
Mary. What you seem to prefer is situational democracy. The elections are legal and binding if you are happy with the outcome. If not, the election was a fraud. WEAC money was good. Republican money bad. Dem gerrymandering good. Republican gerrymandering bad. Has it occurred to you that Wisconsin citizens are voting more conservatively because we are still recovering from the worst recession in 90 years? And like the Great Depression, the psychological impact of our recession, and the fear that many of us felt, will be with us in the voting booth for a long time. The Dems have allowed themselves to be painted as tax and spenders. They have yet to mount a smart retort that resonates in the booth. FYI, I love that Bernie Sanders announced. He is going to rock Hillary's world because he sees things much as I do, both parties are for sale to the highest bidder.
Low information voters...a term co-opted by the tea-repubs here and used t continuously in this comment section to describe the people who actually understand the world around them and the implications of the idiotic legislation being bought and payed for by the cream of socio-pathologic protofascists we call republican" leadership" in this once fine state. You speak of democracy, but this was a expensively payed for and ci=unningly planned coup to get rid of someone the tea-jadis don't care for. Your support of it tells us everything we need to know about you. None dare call it treason....
phantas. The top political special interest in Wisconsin for 20 years was WEAC. Did you protest their influence? How is one special interest better than another? My guess? The one that benefits you the most.
A few years ago, the physical offices of the Secretary of State were moved out of the Capitol building. Wasn't it Doug LaFollette who said he was going to chain himself to his desk and refuse to leave the building? Seems to me when all the huffing and puffing was done, Doug walked out like a little school boy and dutifully carried on his heady duties as Lord Protector of the Great Seal of the State of Wisconsin in one of the grey, drab annexes around the periphery of the seats of power. I believe he took his red Swingline stapler with him and a bottle of bug spray.
Shirley, are you going to chain yourself to the middle chair even if you don't prevail in the courts?
So, if you don't like the election results you hold a recall then hold your own election. Got it.
Shirley is all about entitlement. The arrogance is Clintonesque! That's why she got booted. Term limit all top elected positions in state to two terms.
Imagine the judicial intellect Shirley has suppressed with her Iron fist. Most of our problems comes from people staying in jobs too long. Institutional knowledge is an oxymoron, institutions are supposed to be dynamic.
Are you saying two terms for Walker and he is gone?
Absolutely can live with that. Will do everything to get another Republican or libertarian get elected.
There is no redeeming economic or social value to elect a Democrat because the only goal of a Democrat is to loot everyone.
"A GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS BEST IS THAT GOVERNS LEAST"
@snootyelites: If you think SSA has suppressed any judicial intellect, you obviously know nothing about the court. First, in any case, any justice can write a concurring or dissenting opinion. When they sign on to majority opinions, they can insist that the author make changes and, if those changes are not made, they can concur or dissent. Her acting as Chief Justice does nothing to impact their ability to show us all their judicial intellect.
Second, assignment of majority opinions is random among the justices that vote for whatever turns out to be the majority opinion. They use poker chips with numbers written on them and she's not even the one that picks the poker chip. This random process is different from the U.S. Supreme Court and was an SSA invention.
Third, SSA was elected with an expectation that she would be Chief Justice. The amendment that just passed was not even under consideration at the time, or at least not publicly. Her supporters, four or five of whom are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, elected her under the expectation that absent a resignation or death, she would be the Chief for ten more years. She earned that win and PDR and her former campaign manager, in conjunction with GOP state reps/senate, are exacting a personal vendetta. It's not about entitlement, it is about running around the will of the voters with a abiguously worded amendment voted on by less than 20% of eligible voters in the state.
Finally, SSA remains the hardest working jurist in the state. Anyone that knows the court well knows this. While you can disagree with her opinions, she is never sneaky about what she is doing (unlike, say DTP) and shows all her work in her opinions, hence their length.
One more finally: I agree term limits are a good thing, but that's also not what this amendment was about.
"less than 20% of eligible voters in the state"
just so we are clear - virtually the same number of people voted in the spring election in 2009 and this year...not a compelling point.
But again you make the most compelling point...does being chief actually matter. Clearly someone thinks so because there was a lot of money spent to change the process...yet you point out examples only where it doesn't matter.
That's your partisan opinion. The lady lacked judicial temperament and hard to work with. She thinks she is an entitled sacred cow - no pun intended or taken.
Her claim to fame is the making of the most notorious & dysfunctional State Supreme Court in the nation. She should have thought of her Eulogy but she was thinking about her Resume at age 81.
RIDICULOUS!
From the start of Republican and conservative control of our state 4 yrs ago, the goal has been consolidation of power from 3 branches of government to a single branch with absolute control and with all in lockstep with Walker and Republican elites. It has never been about democracy or governance. It's pure Tea Party ideology.
Legislation is now rushed through with little discussion and no room for dissent. The minority party has no say and those they represent have little input into governance.
The spring election was a joke with 20-28% turnout. What kind of turnout is this? Not even a quorum of voters show up to decide on a constitutional amendment. Hell, North Korea has better turnout for elections. I seriously doubt voters were informed about implications of changes to the constitution until they first read the amendment on election day. First read, it sounded good and logical. If you look at the intent behind the amendment, it was pure politics.
The state is now divided and everyone bears a label: Democrat, Republican, liberal, progressive, conservative, Tea Party, etc. What good will be accomplished if everyone is conveniently assorted and representation in the statehouse is based on those labels?
We need to get rid of the name calling and labels and start working together for the common good. Obviously those in power now have no clue what this is. Keep on bickering and we won't either.
When will we take back our state government?
"When will we take back our state government?"
It is what it is. Under our system the majority rules even if only 1% of the voters show up. You can't make a horse drink. The recall didn't work quite like a lot of people hoped for. Walker has won how many elections now? Can you not really think of a single time the Democrats "rushed" a piece of legislation through?
I'll just keep voting and I'll respect the process in spite of who prevails. Moaning and groaning doesn't change anything. I didn't like Jim Doyle, I didn't support Jim Doyle. In spite of that he was still my governor. I never painted a Hitlerian mustache on his image either.
"Legislation is now rushed through with little discussion and no room for dissent. The minority party has no say and those they represent have little input into governance."
I don't remember a time in my life where legislation was talked about by people more than now...nothing 'slides by'. We have engaged the people more then ever (it is still woefully awful). Just because the GOP doesn't bend to the opposition points doesn't mean they aren't allowed input.
PL, your assertion that nothing "slips by" during this administration is simply false.
Bills are introduced on very short notice, committee hearings are announced with a minimum of notice, and short time limits for speaking- including for legislators- are imposed.
You are right that the opposition works frantically to still get people mobilized, aware of issues, and at the hearings to testify. But, it seldom matters during this administration. Most legislators are 'safe' because of how their districts are drawn and so, they create and pass terribly crafted bills with impunity.
The difference between this era and early eras is a) the complete domination of all branches of government by one party which prevents the 'checks and balances' which are supposed to be provided by the minority party, and b.) the gerrymandered districts which prevent legislators from being held accountable for their votes.
And, no, this didn't happen before. The redistricting has never been done by just one party in the history of the state and we have almost always had divided government which, I believe, was a strength.
And, no, the Republicans have shown that they are not good stewards of power when they are in control. The evidence is clear.
Witness2012:
The "checks and balances" to which you refer have nothing to do with parties or for that matter minority parties. Checks and balances are the three branches of government including legislative, executive,and judicial. It also extends to the enumerated powers of the central government and the power of the states. If all three branches are held by one political persuasion it is because those people were elected by the people or appointed by the peoples agents. I learned that much in seventh grade civics. Who in the hell is teaching government today, MTI? God save us all!
epic- below. I'll put my PhD in Political Science up against your cursory knowledge of checks and balances that you learned in civics class any time.
Do some reading and educate yourself about the role of political parties and how they are intended to balance each other in terms of drafting comprehensive legislation.
Or don't. Just continue to get your knowledge from your rightwing radio programs and don't bother to really understand how governance works.
This was not legislation. This was a referendum to change the Constitution. It was put on the ballot by one party at a strategically favorable moment: an April election, when barely anyone votes. The language was carefully crafted to hide the true partisan political purpose of the proposal. This was a terrific example of something that slid by, just as it was designed to do.
None dare call it what it is: republican treason
I remember when the teabilly leadership introduced Act Ten to the public by pasting a 4x4 post-it note on a bulletin board in an obscure office in the capital.
Term limits I agree with. It will never happen, they're not gonna cut the cord on their own. The people need to stand up. Vote ANY incumbent OUT for a couple elections.. The people need to send a message, it's not like they're getting much done anyways!
I'm sorry Roggensack got it, she is just as arrogant as the rest of the conservatives on the court. It's a wonder they made it through law school.
Shirley, fight for your rightful position--you go girl!
Is being arrogant only a bad thing when it's a Conservative that's arrogant?
ALL of the Justices are arrogant.
The 4 conservative (criminal) judges were put in office by 10 million in out of state money, yes they can be arrogant as they don't have to answer to the little people in Wisconsin. Yes they will make John Doe go away for good, as it protects those that gave them 10 million bucks to do just that. The Wisconsin Supreme court is nothing less than a criminal enterprise.
The liberal justices never took a cent of out-of-State money? By the way, there is nothing wrong with out-of-State money. Just ask Tammy.
Are they criminal because they don't agree with you?
everclear said, "The 4 conservative (criminal) judges"
Can you please tell us exactly what criminal activity you are claiming these four Justices have been involved in or have you just diving into your namesake as a lunchtime snack?
did tammy take 10 million in out of state money? what was the agenda of tammy's supporters vs Michael Gabelman or Prosser's supporters?
I know David Prosser admitted to committing felonies during the caucus scandal, although he did wait until the statute of limitations was expired before doing so. it was his "everybody did it" excuse while trying to get Scott Jensen unconvicted for his on caucus scandal felonies. The angry gum snapping ex cheerleader on the court was caught making decisions as a circuit court judge that directly effected her family business dealings, and who can forget that other heroic supreme Gableman, who won office by slandering his opponent with accusations made up of whole cloth.
If Roggensack or Prosser had been the Chief Justice, would this amendment have even been considered?
No. This was retribution to Justice Abrahamson for several rulings against Walker. It was an effort to make sure that conservative judges can control the court even though liberal judges were in line to sit as Chief Justice based on a law that has ruled the courts for over 100 years.
Club for Growth, Citizens for a Strong America and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce spent millions to support the candidacies of Justices Prosser, Pat Roggensack, Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman over the past seven years. That money needed total control of the court and this legislation guarantees it.
If there ever was an example of abuse of power and the ill informed electorate not knowing what they were voting for, this is it.
"ill informed electorate not knowing what they were voting for"
I feel that way about 95% of all issues...
which is one more reason the repubs want to crush whats left of the public school system. dumb people are easier to lie to.
Wisconsin was only one of seven states that used seniority to determine who will be chief justice. Politics may have provided the urgency but it was a situation that needed fixing. By the way, did anyone watch the inauguration where Chief Justice Shirley rambled on and on about the importance of a non partisan court prior to delivering the oath? First, an inauguration was not the place for a civics lecture and second, check were she got her campaign donations and her voting record and you will see the most partisan member of the court.
Yet, appointments to the US Supreme Court is for life. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is appointed by the sitting president, is only changed when the sitting Chief retires and can be anybody the president chooses, even the new justice just appointed to replace whoever retired. At least Wisconsin justices are elected or reelected every 10 years. The people voting for the sitting Chief knows they are the chief and they re-elect them.
Congress and the senate have no term limits. Committee chairs are given to the ranking party member of the majority party.
These policies have been in place for eons and have generally served the state and nation well. But someone gets a bug up somewhere and then change was needed? I trust had democrats done the same thing you would be applauding it?
Are you happy with how these policies are currently serving the State and the nation? Are you happy with rules that have allowed little notice of hearings? Those rules have also been around for a very long time.
exactly. It is a coup...yet none dare call it treason
I like how all of the resident conservatives here all chirp the same talking points. Abrahamson doesn't listen to the will of the people. She feels entitled. She needs to drop her objections. The people have spoken.
Really?
The people overwhelmingly elected Barrack Obama president to pass a health care law. Yet, conservatives have tried over 50 times to overturn it. They have failed once already in the Supreme Court and another argument is pending.
Obama was elected by a majority of Americans to reform immigration. The president takes executive action like his predecessors because congress refuses to do its job and the conservatives sue.
So lets stop the holier than though stance and understand Abrahmson is just following your lead. After all, like you all say all the time, isn't that why we have a justice branch of government?
not "all" of us...I want her to sue until she can't sue anymore. Of course, that is because I recognize how ridiculous it looks. I would say less than 1% of the people in this state could name a single duty of the chief...I know I can't. Every article about this, it has been my comment. At best, she has slightly more influence on taking cases...but clearly she can't stop the big cases from being heard.
Obama was elected twice. Had he done even a passing job, the GOP wouldn't be in control of both Houses. Health care reform was needed and acknowledged by both parties. The ACA was not.
Because Congress does or does not do what you think they ought to do is no reason to do things illegally. Ever hear of checks and balances?
And he has done nothing illegal. Nothing. Not once. You control both houses. if he did something illegal, impeach him. How's that for checks and balances?
Oh that's right, he hasn't done anything impeachable. So stop trying to convince anyone that will listen to your nonsense that he has.
My nonsense? See that little note at the bottom of all comment sections?
Legality is not, nor ever has been, black and white. That is why we have courts, judges, lawyers and laws.
tt:
Once again the passive/aggressive attack on Obama.
Passive/aggressive? No President has the right to enact his own laws. That is why we have a legislature.
I've heard about some of the cyber stalkers around this site; it looks like phantastischfeldswebel is one of those cyber stalkers.
Shirley is the perfect poster girl for progressive liberals. She, as the former Chief Justice, has been wronged and is now a victim.
The way this amendment was worded is just as sneaky as making the required voter IID's available in places difficult for non-drivers to reach. Oh yes, and then there was the "bomb", also known as Act 10 - the jammed packed budget bill kept under wraps until the last minute with Walker minions trying to push it through in four days.
All sneaky and underhanded Republican machinations.
How did you feel about Doyle and the Dems pushing through that big tax hike in less than 24 hours?
...and gerrymandering too. The Republicans have out-done the Dems at every angle. But I imagine there is more to the Doyle budget story than your one liner.
The Party in power rules. It matters not which Party. When Doyle and the Dems had the reigns, the GOP realized that there was little they could do except work toward future elections. They didn't leave the State. They didn't foment protests. They worked within the system and threw the bums out.
I've heard about some of the cyber stalkers around this site; it looks like phantastischfeldswebel is one of those cyber stalkers.
enough already with this nonsense. You really think that this is a reasonable response to complaints about what just happened. Since Doyle did X, everything the Republicans do is ok. Are you really that shallow? We've heard this how many times from you? Yes, that was bad, but it was years ago. So was Mayor Daley's stealing elections. So was FDR's attempts to pack the court. So was all the crap that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush pulled. Whoop-dee-doo.
I'm sorry, I didn't see LBJ, Carter, or Clinton on your "crap" list.
Standards of behavior should apply equally. I never said that anything was okay.
@epic
Why be sorry? Not sure about Carter. LBJ? Probably. Clinton? He was impeached.
@tomtom: you've "equated" nearly everything the republicans have done since 2010 with Doyle/Dem tax hike. That's a lot of "currency" for one episode versus a boatload. The clear implication of your comments is "what's good for the goose..." So, treat all of these equally? You don't say how. Should these things be ignored and accepted, or should they be greeted with vocal objections and more?
I think that the divisions in the Wisconsin Supreme Court have been shaped by the long-term leadership of an ultra-partisan Chief Justice that feels entitled. The divide that has grown over the years falls directly in the lap of the “leader” Abrahamson, now it's time for someone else to attempt to heal that division and take the Wisconsin Supreme Court into the future.
It's clearly time for Abrahamson to retire.
I wonder if Abrahamson will get her minion Bradley fired up into a frenzy again and have her let loose her uncontrollable temper on Roggensack?
Just sayin.
Prosser will step in and put an end to it if it happens.
Just sayin.
I Love WI,
You're actually admitting that you think Prosser would risk personal injury to protect a lady from an assailant?
Better be really careful, you're not towing the line for the political left in an appropriate manner, maybe some reeducation is in order.
WIAMTM,
Sarcasm: the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say especially in order to insult someone, to show irritation, or to be funny
I Love WI,
Educate yourself on the differences between sarcasm and spin.
You chose to say what you did, you deserved the reply.
Hmmm, Spin? You seem to be ok with Prosser having a temper, but not Bradley. I wasn't spinning anything. I was directing the sarcasm at you.
There it's out there. I am sorry it went over your head.
I Love WI,
I didn't think you would understand, I was correct.
Does prosser carry a gun?
Shirley Abrahamson thinks she is personally entitled, she is wrong.
Prosser congratulated Patience with a handshake to the neck.
Is it really so bad to have two Chiefs? If there is a disagreement -- which I think we can all agree, would be very rare, indeed -- we can merely have David choke one or the other. Let's not overthink this thing!
Admiittedly never been a fan of SA but this makes her look mentally disturbed.
Exactly! There is nobody left to blame now, let's sit back and see how well this goes.....
I don't really care who's in charge, but the change should take place at the beginning of the session, not halfway thru-- the schedule has been set up for the year, now it's potentially in flux....and for other reasons too numerous to type in on a small phone.
How about the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court cut the infantile in-fighting and just do their jobs, no matter who gets to be "Chief"? Or how they get to be "Chief". Same goes for our so-called legislature...
Rumble on the Capitol lawn!!!
What is the basis for refusing to step down on the part of Ms Abrahamson?
The judge DENIED her motion for an injunction.
Does she NOT respect the law?
This does not make her look good.
The judge did not deny Abrahamson's "motion for an injunction"; he denied her motion for a temporary injunction. There is a difference between the two.
The former would be the result of a final decision by the court in Abrahamson's favor. The latter is a temporary measure taken to protect a party from irreparable harm while a case is pending.
In Abrahamson's case, the judge determined she would not suffer irreparable harm if she were removed as chief justice because she could be restored to that position later, if that is the final decision of the court.
Whaaaaaa!!!
Fred Risser next!
Alas, Scott Walker is AWASH in personal debt, so he is relying on delivering for the Kochs to pay his Sears credit card balance ($50K) and his mortgage. The WI Supreme Court is installment number 3....WI is in debt just like Walker.
You can make that kind of inference, but yet ignore what the Clinton's did with their foundation???!?
No corruption of influence sold there right? Those donations made and not disclosed were just out of the goodness of their hearts.
is this article about the Clintons? The Bushes? The Rubios? Learn to read and infer young man. It's about Wisconsin, where Sconnie Walkster is Gov.
Standards of behavior should apply to all. What others do and how they are viewed/treated is entirely germane to your point. And you tell others to learn how to read and infer?
jenzut...this article isn't about Walker either...
Excellent!
Shirley leave with dignity or you will be evicted
Yet another example of epic overreach by Tea Partiers who are far too full of themselves. It will be interesting to see what historians make of the remarkable era we live in twenty years from now.
Interesting that you think 53% of the electorate who voted in favor of this change constitutes "Tea Partiers who are far too full of themselves." Just call them what a rational person would: "a majority".
I think you mean 53% of the 20% of people who bothered to vote
The last 2 gubernatorial elections with Walker had the highest percentage turnout even in Wisconsin history...over 50%.
@phantastischfeldswebel;
"I think you mean 53% of the 20% of people who bothered to vote"
So, those are the people you and your wife would refuse to treat when you finish with your "highly sought after medical training program" or somesuch.
Remind us all, would your embracing a "Hypocritical Oath" pertain only to those not ideologically certified, or ones that don't slobber all over you with effusively obsequious 'thank yous?'
Plus, what do you care.
You've stated very clearly, with impetuously immature whining, that you're going to wah wah wah and take your 'highly sought after skills' (chanting, Tarot Cards, applying leeches, etc.?) to somewhere you believe you'll be appreciated.
The Gotch
The Gotch
Snatch..munch.. botch...whatever...what are you gibbering about now? Do you have a problem with leaches? I have applied hundreds of leaches in my career. Mostly to people's tongues and lips, but occasionally; to their fingers or toes, and once, a man's penis. It would appear that you aren't as smart as you think you are , if you believe I would be anything but proud to have leached the people who's body parts I've helped save. Here's a suggestion, Hooch: Stop cyber stalking me, stop making things up, and...consider auto-euthansia, you turgid puddle of effluvia.
@phantastischfeldswebel;
"what are you gibbering about now?"
Oh yeah; I'm the one gibbering.
"I have applied hundreds of leaches (sic) in my career."
My sense is your "highly sought after" training doesn't include proper English language usage, am I right?
Oh the stifling irony! Once you start filling out employment paperwork, you'll be applying AS one.
And let's just say I'm not surprised at which parts you've attempted to save, in at least one instance.
"Stop cyber stalking me, stop making things up, and...consider auto-euthansia, you turgid puddle of effluvia."
Well my Gunny Sacks (H/T @GDHM)! That comes off as rather misplaced and unbecoming anger.
Might you apply a leech...um...somewhere to...um...leach that off?
WoofDah!!
The Gotch
@phantastischfeldswebel ;
"Some of us post feverishly (and with less than close attention to literary pretense) from iPhones as we sit upon the commode (the only truly free moments among those who actually labor for the public good),"
I don't have an iPhone, but have certainly conducted my fair share of conversations whilst perched upon the Porcelain Goddess.
Heck, I had a wall unit hooked up in the Loo of my 1st house; talk about staying connected!
"Given your level of discourse, I don't think it's wrong for me to mention to you that playing with zip ties and midget porn, might one day allow you to experience the miracle of LEECH therapy."
Given your level of discourse, I don't think it's wrong for me to mention to you that my best sense tells me you get rattled very easily.
So I'm glad you'll be headin' out of Dodge once your very sought after advanced blood-letting program has completed.
Let's say at some point in time, I catch something important in an unforgiving zipper, and the planets align in such a way that I land in your...um...care, (I use that term advisedly).
I wouldn't prefer to place that particular appendage, none of my main parts neither, in harm's way with the likes of a Nervous Nellie like yourself, for personal well-being reasons I hope you understand.
Besides, you've made it abundantly clear (your "Hypocritical Oath") that you intend to skeedaddle because you don't want to provide your services to those not passing ideological muster.
With heavy heart, I humbly confess that may be the case with me, but you're a self-anointed smart career Lefty and likely already know that.
'Anger management' ever surface in any of your high-level-thinking-low-information-voting confabs?
It may benefit those that post feverishly in the most unlikely of places and claim any error that ensues therefrom is because they actually labor for the public good.
If the post I'm responding to was crafted from the 'throne,' yer severely backed up!
Digestively, Philosophically, & Existentially.
Capisce?
The Gotch
gootch...your willful, and dare I say it...tactical disregard for what I actually said about why I'm leaving this poop-hole state has grown tiresome. Please please...let's meet for a drink so I can better explain myself. When all is said and done, I feel confident that you will understand. And if you don't, I suspect I will have squeezed a bit of satisfaction out you....anyway.
But baggers dont read history books....or much of anything
Don't worry. Prosser can be chief, too. Don't forget, we will have endless rounds of election campaigns to determine who gets to be chief now and, incidentally, run all the state courts, too.
If you wanted instability, constant campaigning, and forming of alliances and voting blocs, well, welcome to the Wisconsin state supreme court! Politicizing who is chief will add one more divisive element to an already strained institution and the lack of continuity will hurt the entire state court system.
I watched the public hearing and the executive session when the senate committee voted to pass the bill that put the amendment on the spring ballot. The executive session immediately followed the public hearing last january.
While I watched the public hearing and listened to the testimony of the people who travelled to Madison from all across the state and all who overwhelmingly urged the committee not to support an amendment that allowed the chief to be elected, two of the three Republicans did not.
Because Senator Lasee and senator Vukmir could not bother to be in the hearing room to listen to testimony, they didn't hear about the many problems, the 'unintended consequences", and the unresolved issues that would come with politicizing the selection of chief justice rather than allowing it to be determined by seniority.
The two democratic senators on the committee, Senator Taylor and Senator Risser were present, listened carefully, and offered amendments to the proposed law which would have improved it or removed some of the uncertainty from the changed process.
None of it mattered. Senator Vukmir showed up when it was time to vote- having missed the public testimony altogether. Senator Lasee, who was supposed to join by phone, had his battery die and wasn't present, even virtually, for most of the executive session.
When Senator Taylor questioned the absence of a quorum when it was time to vote, the republican chair worked very hard to try to get lasee on the phone so they could go through a semblance of democratic procedures. It took almost an hour to do that. (Senator Taylor and Risser left and went back to their offices until all the senators could be assembled and assured the republican chair that they would not be leaving for Rockford).
That charade of a legal procedure is the "democracy" you all are applauding. It was a travesty. Look up the hearing in the archives of wiseye and see for yourself if you have any doubts about how this went down.
Nothing has ever been decided by public hearing. Few relevant facts come out that were not previously known. I have testified at many public hearings and have seen the votes go against the sentiment expressed at the hearings many times. I have also seen the committee dais nearly vacant for most of the hearing. This has been happening for decades.
Since some don't like the outcome, they now criticize the process? Where were you 30 years ago?
What is your name? Your address? Tell us about your family. Your job.
You have been in clear violation of the terms and conditions of this site many times. Yet you have not been banned. I guess the t and c are just a joke.
tt:
"Nothing has ever been decided by public hearing." Your statement is absolute nonsense. If you have as much experience as you claim you would realize your mistake or recognize your lie. Your anecdotal experience is far from reality. I could make the opposite claim and it would have the same validity.
I was only actively involved for around 20 years. During that 20 years I did not attend every hearing. Of the hearings I did attend, I can say that little of consequence was unearthed.
The feeling among legislators I knew and lobbyists I knew was that hearings were a necessary show where little was accomplished. That may explain the empty chairs for committee members.
Not true, TT34, and PL.
Some policy decisions are deliberated on, given a lot of public attention and time, and the best ones take a few sessions of changing, amending in response to critiques, etc. to get it right.
This was a hack job- passed hurriedly when no one was paying attention with the hope that no one would follow it closely- and left many unresolved issues, including when the elections for chief justice would be held.
This was a change to the state constitution which is a big deal and it was all done because the Republicans in charge don't like Shirley Abrahamson. It's ridiculous and it's sloppy and shoddy.
I also testify at many public hearings and I have watched bills get pulled from committee when it is made clear to the people sponsoring it how flawed they are and how much opposition there is to it. Thirty years ago, I would have needed a note to get out of school in order to testify- so in answer to that question, I was getting educated 30 years ago.
This is NOT how good legislation is crafted! And, this committee process was one of the worst I have ever witnessed. They didn't even try to pretend they were being responsive.
I applaud senator Taylor and Risser for taking the process seriously and doing their best to improve the bill before them.
Hack jobs are hurriedly passed when they do something you don't like. Was Doyle's big tax increase that was introduced and passed in less than 24 hours hurriedly passed? That was something that the Dem caucus explored in depth before it came together.
Act 10 was discussed at length by the GOP caucus and changed many times before it came together.
It is very difficult to pass any legislation under the best of circumstances. Legislative rules realize this and allow for ways forward.
None dare call it treason
that is how government operates...it isn't special for this bill...it isn't special for one party...the whole thing is decided before anything goes out for any vote.
Awesome!
In the end, I love this move.
The GOP owns the Assembly, the Senate, the Governor's mansion, the Supreme Court, and now....the Chief Justice.
Clearly, we should now be moving past "the failed policies of Jim Doyle" any time, right?
See, that the funny thing about having all the power. You don't have any more scapegoats.
You're already seeing the GOP legislators turning tail and hiding from many key issues in Walker's bona fide Conservative Budget. I mean, why back down? What do you have to lose?
Besides everything.
BSF, are you kidding? As long as Obama is president of the US and hillary Clinton has declared for the presidency, those that support the complete Republican takeover of state government will find a scapegoat to blame any 'failures' on.
Just think of the end of Casablanca when someone has to be held responsible for the shooting of the nazi major who is trying to stop the plane on which Victor Laszlo, the head of the resistance is a passenger. Since Captain Renaud plans to partner up with Rick, so they can go fight the Nazis, he doesn't name him as the person who actually shot the general, even though he witnessed it.
Instead, he tells his men to go "round up the usual suspects". Realize that there will always be Democrats who are "the usual suspects" for Republicans looking to assign blame.
When the Dems controlled the House and Senate along with POTUS, they blamed the GOP opposition and Bush. The voters saw through that one.
Anyone else have a song starting with "ding dong..." running through their head tonight?
No, but Walker is still hearing voices. He thinks they are God talking to him.
This is what democracy looks like!
This is equivalent to judicial gerrymandering.
You get what you pay for. PDR's former campaign manager was the one that lined up all the money for the pro-amendment ads. I wouldn't really have a problem with this if she wasn't such an intellectual lightweight. She drafts overreaching and logically compromised opinions; an awful jurist. However, Compared to her three supporters I guess she's the second smartest behind DTP.
Agreed. The 'saving construction' she added to the photo id law to try to help it pass constitutional muster is overly vague and will be incredibly difficult for the DMV to implement.
Why couldn't people turn out and elect Ed Fallone when they had the chance? A missed opportunity.
Boo Hoo. This is what democracy looks like.
"democracy" with, what, 20% or less of eligible voters able to change the State constitution and, in turn, overthrow the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Only in a very warped and amoral reality would someone consider that to be a good thing. And it's cynical politics at its worst.
Yes, Democracy....those who care enough to show up and vote get to decide.
quit being such a radical...we should instead try and figure out how to get all those people who don't care enough to vote out to the polls...yeah democracy.
You can hide behind the technical legality of the move, but that's no excuse for avoiding the question of whether this is right or wrong. Let's hear your argument for allowing one party to sneak through a constitutional amendment during an election when they know hardly anyone will vote. That's a bastardization of the democratic process. Just imagine what other sorts of things could be done if this method was used more frequently by any majority party. Still in favor of it?Bringing up other examples of doing these sorts of end runs is just another way to avoid facing the question.
buckthorn said, "sneak through a constitutional amendment"
Sneak through? Now that's some kind a spin, holy cow! Typical Liberal ideology, an ideology of excuses! There was no sneaking through.
Take a look at the votes.
There were 818,036 votes cast on the Amendment; 433,533 Yes, 384,503 No.
There were 809,562 voted cast on Supreme Court Justice; 469,972 Bradley, 339,590 Daley.
Looking at the vote totals, it's pretty clear that many of the same Liberal and Independent voters that supported the very Liberal Justice Bradley with their votes chose to vote with Conservatives on the Constitutional Amendment.
Those who did not vote abstained in a similar manner to a certain IL State Senator who tended to vote present.
If the Tea Party had run the amendment during a presidential year when a more representative vote takes place, it wouldn't have passed. But, they are good at strategy and politics. Leadership and ideas....not so much.
What on earth does you comment have to do with the topic of this article?
if you don't understand it...you're living proof that it's true
Lumberjack said, "If the Tea Party had run the amendment during a presidential year when a more representative vote takes place, it wouldn't have passed."
Typical Liberal ideology, an ideology of excuses! There is no evidence to support your false argument, in fact the actual vote counts this time around disprove your argument.
There were 818,036 votes cast on the Amendment; 433,533 Yes, 384,503 No.
There were 809,562 voted cast on Supreme Court Justice; 469,972 Bradley, 339,590 Daley.
Looking at the vote totals, it's pretty clear that many of the Liberal and Independent voters that supported the very Liberal Justice Bradley with their votes chose to vote with Conservatives on the Constitutional Amendment. Damn Liberal defectors, what were they thinking.
I think the vote total comparisons prove that the amendment was NOT a partisan issue.
Hmmm, I am pretty sure if the Democrats had the majority, this referendum wouldn't have occurred. This wasn't an issue until the Republicans brought it up. So in my opinion it was a partisan issue.
I Love WI said, "So in my opinion it was a partisan issue."
The voters don't agree with you.
WIAMTM.
No they didn't. It wasn't on the ballot to vote if it was partisan, or not.
I Love WI,
You lack of understanding is astounding.
Gerrymandering, making voter ID's only available for non-drivers out at DMV offices, unveiling controversial legislation and slamming it through in a foreshortened time, and now this misleading wording on the ballot to remove a highly respected chief justice from her position - are only a few sneaky things this Republican "leadership" does to accomplish its goals.
What "misleading wording" exactly? It was quite clear. Nothing in the wording stated that they would, or would have to, wait until some future date to do it either.
She can remain a highly respected justice for the rest of her term. The ballot she was elected from didn't say "chief justice".
Just 1 more step in the right direction! Hopefully, the good people of Wisconsin will continue this trend to remove progressives from office.
And, what is so bad with progressives? Robert M LaFollette was a progressive Republican. Wisconsin has enjoyed a century of progressive legislation. We have all benefited from it. Name one piece of legislation that has harmed you and to what extent?
Progressivism is the only reason America is still America. You're welcome.
wow g0otch...who knew you were a progressive from back in the day?
Progressivism died a century ago. RIP.
Because reactionary conservatives have accomplished...what, exactly?
Act 10, RTW, voter ID, fiscal restraint, gun laws, and the spine to take on entrenched special interests. Il, Detroit and Baltimore are examples of liberalism run amok.
Never fear, I am sure that the conservatives will overreach and hand it all back. But it might take awhile.
tomtom34,
You think the Conservatives "will overreach"? That funny because I think most people feel they already have overreached and its payback time in the next couple of elections.
By "accomplished" I meant in terms of good public policy. As the state's debt is increasing and not decreasing, I don't see any evidence of fiscal restraint. I was looking for an example of how reactionary conservatives have made life better for Wisconsinites, not worse.
Columbo, many people feel that the GOP overreached with Act 10. Guess what? The GOP has continued to win.
nav's predictions on voter sentiment have been proven wrong time and time and time again...
Mary, good public policy is in the eye of the beholder. Are you in favor of decreasing the debt? Is that good public policy in light of the continuing poor recovery nationwide? The best way for government to make life better for us all is to get out of the way.
tt:
That is hilarious. What benefits have RTW and Act 10 provided to the citizens of WI? And fiscal restrain, you have to be kidding. Do you keep current with what happens here before you comment?
Act 10 wrested control over WI civil servants from the unions. RTW can provide incentive for investment.
The voters continue to agree with me. Have you seen any vote counts lately? There is a reason that the voters tossed out the Dems in WI, nationwide, and in DC.
And I feel no need to try to disparage you personally. I can argue the issues.
tt:
Please provide some credible evidence the RTW can provide incentive for investment. The key here is "credible".
You have disparaged me in the past, but I just consider the source and move on..
How about 50% of the States have RTW laws?
Your personal attacks have crossed the line. If you could argue the issues, I imagine that you would.
hopefully we can start shooting these progressives in the street, Right? I mean it's so much cheaper than buying elections
I suspect most of "the people" respect(ed) Justice Abrahamson's long service as a justice and were/are happy to re-elect her to a seat on the court, hardly realizing that seniority was what made her Chief Justice (or perhaps even that she is/was Chief Justice). Later, they were asked a separate question about how the Chief should be chosen, and most probably considered the question while making no real connection to who the current or potential future Chief Justices are/were. Did the conservatives play their cards craftily? Yes. Do they realize that someday they may (again) be on the short side of the court's majority? Yes. These are smart people. They get that. That said, can Shirley say she was hustled out of the Chief's spot before she'd had a fair turn, or that her claims re: hanging on to the job aren't getting a "day in court?" No to both. A victim she is not.
Thank you for your leadership, Justice Abrahamson, but it is time for a change.
Lynne4.330:
Thank you for your leadership, Lynne, but it is time for a change.
The nominees are Norwood 44, RSR, and, of course, The Gotch. RSR will probably win due to popular demand
@adamman;
I refuse to be a part of an organization that would have the poor taste to allow me membership.
The Gotch
please try to site your sources, hooch...otherwise it's plagiarism.
Please try to remember the difference between site and cite phan.
@outlander (below);
Careful! @phantastischfeldswebel will have self-described "highly sought after treatment skills" after he finishes up his Beauty College program which he is on record saying he'd withhold from sufferers that don't meet his threshold for being a career Lefty.
If you ever have a hangnail, inflamed cuticle, or (perish the thought) toenail fungus, he may refuse treatment.
Something to ponder!
WoofDah!!
The Gotch
Yeah...pretty much had that APA manual memorized, so it's surprising to me that that I'd actually spell 'cite' wrong...but I'm not at all surprised that you're a spell nazi (Feldeswebel, 2015, p. 12).
References
Feldeswebel, P. (2015, April 31). Why republicans are stupid: lead poisoning? The American Journal of the True Patriot , 1(1), 12 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbp097
Gootchie-kins, did you know that putting quotation marks around words that are not direct, much less indirect quotes and then falsely attributing them...is also considered to be plagiarism? In fact under some circumstances it be considered libelous (though perhaps not when two people use psuedonyms on a comment board-unless you and I, because of prolific public posting, have become actual public personas with reputations to protect...which is a possibility). In any case, you are lying when you say that I said that you have quoted me as saying. This is because you are a childish weak, obese and odiferous disseminator, and you ought to man up about it. In order to do so, you should meet me at the Wisco tonight and I'll help you grow into the truthful adult your momma hoped you'd one day be...before she carried that monumental disappointment to her grave. Come on Coochie...show us what a man you are. Come git some...or be got.
Time for a change? For any particular reason or just because?
"Snark!"
Thank you Governor Walker for your leadership, Wisconsin is in full reverse under said leadership, it is time for a change!
DemSlayr, if "the people" wanted to demote her, they could have not reelected her in the first place.
Anyways her demotion was the will of four people, not "the people"
Unless you're suggesting that "the people" voted on the amendment purely to demote the current Chief Justice. That seems a little short sighted if that's the case, and honestly the wording of the amendment makes for a logical reasonable change, so I doubt those who voted on it were trying to demote her.
I do find the timing and the immediacy of the implementation quite convenient for republicans though. And that the administration seemed to be preparing for the amendment's passing well before it was introduced
I would guess very few voters were aware of the amendment until they got to the polls. They read the item and, thinking it is a good idea, they voted yes. So often these initiatives get onto ballots without people knowing all the ins/outs.
As the last 4 years have shown, people still vote party affiliation without having the facts. They in a sense shoot themselves in the foot and then wonder what happened. Most in our state have been damaged by the last few elections.
It will take a generation or longer to return the state to its present glory.
It will not happen in our lifetime, wih. If ever.
Thankfully. The Big O may have set you back that long. Doyle and the Dems certainly played their parts.
tt:
A couple weeks ago you were "standing with" Obama. Now another passive/aggressive demonization. True to form.
And if you didn't notice, Doyle and Obama had nothing to with the Chief Justice situation. Another poor try at deflection.
See the reply button, hank? I replied to the comment above mine. That comment had nothing to do with Shirley either.
There is nothing demonizing about disagreeing with anything. Remember when GW Bush was being slammed for everything he did? Pelosi and Reid said that dissension was patriotic.
tt:
Poor deflect. We aren't talking about Obama, Pelosi or Reid.
Hows that graveyard paying' timtim tysver?
I voted to kick that witch to the curb! Like it or not we have the power and what you like or dislike about how we use that power is inconsequential to us. Enjoy your last 4 years on the sidelines watching us tear apart everything you believe in Shirley, if it is too painful for you feel free too retire anytime, we could use another conservative on the court.
bigdaddy61: I understand that my response is "inconsequential" to you because that's how the Republican legislature in this state has been governing for several years. They have refused to listen to minority perspectives or alternative ideas. My "senator," Jerry Petrowski, will not even acknowledge receiving my emails much less offer a thoughtful reply to my appeals for reason to balance partisan ideology. It is incredibly frustrating to not be heard as I watch you and your kind "tear apart everything (I) believe in." So this comment may well resemble an exercise in futility, like shouting at a tornado to "STOP!!" --but maybe some other readers will be encouraged by this non-Madison, non-union voice speaking a personal truth: Your paragraph is absolutely disgusting. It makes me want to puke...or lash out. Your words above characterize the very worst of this state's current NON-Representative Democracy. I am finding it very difficult to hang on to hope, but there is a spark left within me that still believes you will face a reckoning.
I love watching your progressive hopes die and wither on the vine.. If you don't like the way the state is being run I would suggest you figure out how to actually win an election. I am prospering at unprecedented levels under the Republican administration in Wisconsin as are the other producers. As for the rest of you who were making a living off other peoples taxes, I could not care less that you are not being heard, as a matter of fact it is very satisfying to know that you feel that way. Your anger and frustration at being marginalized brings a smile to my face every time I think about it THANK YOU TribleG60 for affirming that our policies are getting the results we are looking for. Anything that angers and frustrates people that believe like you is a positive for those who believe like me. I thank God everyday that there are more people with my belief systems than yours in Wisconsin and don't ever forget we beat you 3 times in 4 years and that is what democracy looks like.
bigdaddy61:
"I am prospering at unprecedented levels under the Republican administration in Wisconsin, as are the other producers."
Please elaborate. What are you producing? What field of work or manufacturing are you referring? Are you in the Dairy Ind.? If so, which district(s) is your production in? Please substantiate your claim.
Don't think this'll help the tanking poll numbers in our state..Are they down in the 30's yet?..
Thank you Governor Walker, your "divide and conquer" is working!!!!!!!!!!!
Be careful of what you wish for, patience will prevail, time will right the ship!
Patience definition is to be tolerant of others, hmmm?
DemSlayr,
The people were duped with this amendment rushed through by Republicans. It has nothing to do with the will of the people.
Until the amendment passed, the chief justice was chosen by the people. The justice elected and serving the longest was formerly chosen by the people. Now we have a clever and convenient way to get rid of a chief justice because Republicans and cons simply don't like the current chief.
The people have no say this time. Now the choice is all politics and popularity. The supreme court has been turned into an exercise in middle school pettiness.
Stomp them grapes, they are SO sour !
There are no grapes to stomp. It makes sense. Unlike other states or the feds, Wisconsin voters select those who serve on the supreme court. For more than a century, we voters chose the chief by simply voting that person the most often. We voters have the final say who will be chief.
All of a sudden we have lost this right. The chief is no longer voted in by us but rather is the result of a popularity contest.
We voters have lost this time.
"The chief is no longer voted in by us but rather is the result of a popularity contest.' We call those contests elections around here. The amendment won, Wisconsin won, democracy won.
Here I thought that look was thanks to botched plastic surgery. Aliases and nom de comments are an honored American tradition. Just ask Silence Dogood.
Proud Mary, So nice and proper of you to slam everyone who disagrees with your opinion on things. So, to hell with the grapes, just shoot the messenger! Oh wait, you can't shoot all the messengers. We are just parts of the majority. And you can't shoot all of your opposition...not in America.
Mary Erpenbach (below),
Maybe you haven't read the paragraph at the bottom of all the article comments section, the last sentence states, "Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings."
You calling others trolls on a regular basis seems a bit like breaking the rules to me.
It does. I reported her comment, and the comment was not deleted. Only some comments are deleted regardless of content.
"rushed through by Republicans" - I guess having to pass thru two (2) legislative sessions AND a popular vote (where a liberal judge was re-elected) is a new definition of 'rushed' to me.
"the chief justice was chosen by the people" Nope - she was elected as a SC justice, that's it. The constitution said most senior, and now the PEOPLE, not republicans, changed it.
"Republicans and cons simply don't like the current chief" a) she sued the day after the elections, knowing her peers wouldn't elect her. b) the vote for the change was over 53%, which shows not JUST republicans/conservatives voted for the change, or WB wouldn't have won.
"It has nothing to do with the will of the people." then what ARE elections?
thanks for playing.
"As one of her former law clerks told Milwaukee Magazine in a 1987 story, Abrahamson 'will spar over issues and concepts till the cows come home.' And once she is convinced of something, he added, she won’t change her mind. 'She’d go to the pillory first' "
kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it? Guess her last 4 years will be lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit....
Wonderful news.
C'ya Shirley. You have been demoted by the will of the people.
no - by the stupidity of the incurious and ill-informed.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Madison.com plans to switch to a new platform for reader engagement. Website article commenting will be disabled prior to the launch of the new platform. Participants will still need an account to post commentary on the site using the new system, called Livefyre. We hope this fresh start will create a more welcoming virtual space for a wider range of people and viewpoints.