Skip to comments.Judge declines to immediately halt chief justice amendment (WI)
Posted on 04/10/2015 7:43:29 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Madison A federal judge declined Thursday to put an immediate halt on an amendment to the state constitution adopted by voters this week that would allow the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to choose the chief justice.
The job of chief justice has automatically gone to the most senior member of the Supreme Court for the last 126 years. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and her supporters sued to keep her position as the court's leader on Wednesday, a day after voters approved changing how the chief justice is selected.
She argues the provision can't go into effect until her current term on the court ends in 2019.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson on Thursday denied Abrahamson's motion to issue a temporary restraining order that would keep the amendment from going into place.
In a four-page order, he wrote it was inappropriate to do that without hearing from the defendants in the case, particularly when the measure wouldn't go into effect until after Tuesday's vote is certified on April 29.
In effect, Peterson wrote there was no need to immediately rule on the issue because Abrahamson won't suffer any harm in the short term. He is to hear from all sides on April 21.
"I have made no determination on the merits of the plaintiffs' case," Peterson wrote.
The situation leaves Abrahamson with a chance to try to block the amendment from taking effect while she pursues her case.
The chief justice serves as the administrative head of the state's judiciary and sets agendas for the high court. Abrahamson is a liberal on a court controlled by conservatives and is widely expected to be demoted if the justices get to choose their leader.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
A federal judge on Thursday denied a temporary restraining order to Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who filed suit to stop from taking immediate effect a constitutional amendment on the selection of chief justices.
Federal judge denies Abrahamson’s call for restraining order on constitutional amendment — for now.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
What a witch. Who the hell does she think she is? Why is she so special? The voters, through a free and fair election, changed the method of choosing a Chief Justice. Everything was done legally and above board. Why does she feel exempt from the voters, from the people? What is her problem? Liberalism and feeling of entitlement, plus that she knows better than the people how judges should be chosen????
Typical Lib. “I DON’T CARE IF THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN DON’T WANT ME AS CHIEF JUSTICE, I DESERVE IT!!!’
Because she's obviously smarter & more caring than the voters...it's for their own good, don't cha know?
Part of Abrahamson’s argument is that she would be deprived of $8,000 in pay a year if she were no longer chief justice. The chief justice makes $155,403 and the other justices make $147,403.
Federal judge has no jurisdiction here, just like they had no jurisdiction striking down constitutional amendments upholding traditional marriage.
Since she didn’t get the TRO the matter now goes to a preliminary injunction hearing on 4/21. In order to prevail she would have to show, among other things, a substantial liklihood her case would prevail on the merits. Given that her claim, as described in the media, is very arcane and conveluted I don’t think she’ll get the PI.
So why is he even hearing this?
Exactly. The people voted and she refuses to comply. Throw her in jail.
Because she knows that the only way liberalism succeeds is if the Judge is in their pocket and is not afraid to rule their way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.