Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abrahamson asks appeals court to speed up its ruling in war for Supreme Court
The Wisconsin Reporter -- Watchdog ^ | 6-4-15 | M. D. Kittle

Posted on 06/04/2015 6:51:00 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

MADISON, Wis. – It’s been a busy few weeks around the Wisconsin Supreme Court, if not actually inside the state’s top court.

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson asked a federal appeals court to, at least temporarily, give her back the job of chief justice, a position she lost in an April vote of her fellow justices.

The next day, hoping to expedite her appeals case, Abrahamson asked U.S. District Court Judge James Peterson to hit the pause button on her underlying federal claim – that her civil rights were violated when Wisconsin voters changed the state constitution, which changed the court’s leadership.

Also on Wednesday, Abrahamson attorney Robert S. Peck wrote to Peterson attempting to correct statements Peck entered into the court record on behalf of his client.

“I write the Court today to correct any misimpressions the (Abrahamson’s) Declaration may have fostered,” Peck wrote.

Legal experts say this week’s legal moves make it increasingly clear that Abrahamson sees little chance for her civil rights lawsuit in the federal district court.

It’s been a legal sprint for Abrahamson since April 7. That’s when Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing state Supreme Court justices to elect their chief, ending the state’s 126-year practice of determining the post on seniority alone.

On April 8, Abrahamson filed her civil rights claim, and then twice asked the federal district court to temporarily stop the amendment from being implemented while her civil rights case proceeded. The court twice declined.

In late April, the four conservative members of the seven-person court elected Justice Patience Roggensack as the court’s new chief justice.

Roggensack has gone on to do the work of a chief justice – such as scheduling meetings and appointing staff positions. That infuriated Abrahamson.

Peterson, an Obama nominee, in an order did not accept Abrahamson’s claims that she suffered irreparable harm in the chief justice election, or at least he said it would cause Roggensack the same level of harm to be displaced from her new post as chief.

“Since that order, Defendant Roggensack has repeatedly violated Wisconsin Supreme Court procedures while purporting to act as chief justice,” Abrahamson declared in her appeal for an expedited appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is arguably the most consistent defender of states’ rights in the federal court system. It isn’t fond of federal interference in state matters, as it proved recently in rejecting a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the prosecutors of a political John Doe investigation into dozens of conservative activists.

In the case of Abrahamson, it was state voters who approved a referendum to redefine the state’s constitution. That’s about as states’ rights as it gets.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: abrahamson; appeals; chiefjustice; roggansack

CHIEF ARGUMENT: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson is asking a federal appeals court to step up its decision in her bid to win back her chief justice job.

1 posted on 06/04/2015 6:51:00 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; onyx; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; ...

Abrahamson has really gone ‘round the bend! The saga continues.

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

2 posted on 06/04/2015 6:52:37 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Doesn’t she believe in democracy?

3 posted on 06/04/2015 6:56:35 AM PDT by The Free Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Free Engineer

Apparently not!

4 posted on 06/04/2015 7:01:50 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

One of the justices who undoubtedly voted to keep Abrahamson was Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who charged at Justice Prosser (who was standing in the open doorway to her office) and accused him of choking her when he spread his arms out to defend himself.

The Marxists’ heads explode when their power structures are dismantled.

5 posted on 06/04/2015 7:04:17 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

I remember that. Just the third Lib Justice also a woman? Lib women are getting tougher to deal with than Lib men!

6 posted on 06/04/2015 7:07:01 AM PDT by originalbuckeye (Not my circus, not my monkeys.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Waaa waa waaa!

The typical approach of a Dimocrat is to seek to avoid and annul the democratic process.

7 posted on 06/04/2015 7:51:14 AM PDT by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

No the third liberal justice initially was critical of Abrahamson and the way she not only handled the court, but the lawsuit after the vote.

That is at least until he found out he wasn’t going to be elected into the spot and he began raising hell too.

Wacky world here in WI...

8 posted on 06/04/2015 8:00:54 AM PDT by MNlurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MNlurker

To my mind, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism are all antithetical to our Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded. The Founders escaped their European homelands to get away from these people. For people like Abrahamson, and the other two to have ever been allowed anywhere near a Supreme Court judgeship shows just how far we have allowed this country to slip for the sake of “multiculturalism.” They have implanted themselves, with the specific purpose of doing away with the very form of government they swore to uphold. Nothing any of them do to try and keep their seats while they seek to thwart the efforts of decent Americans to grow our Republic surprises me.

9 posted on 06/04/2015 10:07:37 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson