Posted on 09/07/2015 8:01:15 AM PDT by Auntie Mame
MADISON, Wis. (CN) - Wisconsin's former chief justice is taking her fight to regain her position to a federal appeals court.
Justice Shirley Abrahamson lost her position as chief justice of the state's Supreme Court in April, after voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that changed how the court's top judge is selected.
Previously, the justice with the most seniority held the position of chief justice; the amendment, however, empowered the judges on the court to choose their own chief justice.
On April 29, the four of the court's seven justices voted by email to elect Patience Roggensack the new chief justice, ousting Abrahamson, who had held the position since 1996. Abrahamson and two other justices chose not to participate.
Abrahamson and five of her supporters sued over the constitutional amendment the day after it passed, contending she had a right to remain chief justice until 2019, when her current term on the court expires, and that her removal violated her and her supporters' civil rights.
In July, U.S. District Judge James Peterson granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Abrahamson's lawsuit, concluding that it ultimately wasn't up to the federal court to decide how the amendment should be interpreted.
"Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes," Peterson wrote. "There is no requirement that a state, in restructuring its government or the powers and duties of its officials by means of a constitutional amendment, do so with super-clarity to protect the interests of the officials or voters whose interests might be impaired."
Peterson went on to say that unless a state's actions are plainly unconstitutional, it has the "authority and autonomy" to restructure its government as it sees fit, without federal interference.
Abrahamson filed a notice of an appeal of Peterson's ruling with the Seventh Circuit on Wednesday.
Will of the people be damned.
Liberal Judge gets outfoxed. Cries, “Wolf.”
A word of explanation would be helpful.
Leni
She is a raving liberal loon of bad temperment who had controlled the WI supreme court for decades.
But the people of Madison loved her.
We finally got her out as chief justice last April.
If conservatives hadn’t held a 4-3 majority on the court, ALL of Scott Walker’s reforms would have been invalidated,
“Previously, the justice with the most seniority held the position of chief justice” “...Abrahamson, who had held the position since 1996.”
So, if I’m reading this right, she’s became the Chief Justice 19 years ago. The other justices must have been pretty young at the time, either that, or Abrahamson is older than dirt.
Congratulations to Wisconsin conservatives!
Leni
“If conservatives hadn’t held a 4-3 majority on the court, ALL of Scott Walker’s reforms would have been invalidate”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BINGO! This is why elections have consequences. We need to win elections if nothing else than to get judges and justices who are more conservative.
I know Roberts was a big letdown on Obamacare, but at least he is miles ahead of Kagan or the Wise Latina.
She’s been on the court since 1976, 19 years longer than the second-longest member, who is also a Democrat moonbat (Ann Bradley) and a violent one at that, who physically assaulted a Republican member of the court.
She is 81 years old and was first appointed to the court in 1976. So at the time she was already at 20 years tenure. Wisconsin has judical elections in 7 out of 10 year cycle with only one judge seat on the ballot in a year.
Judicial selection
The court is composed of seven justices who are elected to 10-year terms in statewide, nonpartisan elections. Only one justice may be elected in any year. In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power to appoint an individual to the vacancy, but that justice must then stand for election in the first year where no other justice’s term expires.
Two of the seven were orginally apointed, the other five apparently rose via election.
it (the State) has the “authority and autonomy” to restructure its government as it sees fit, without federal interference.
Abrahamson has absolutely no respect for the rule of law. She already ruled, in her own court, the ground rules for the implementation of amendments to the state constitution in 2002. State v Gonzalez (01-0224-CR). She is ignoring her own SC decision. Federal courts have no business interfering here.
Well, then, she wins. Maybe she could get the other judges incarcerated while she's at it.
Sorry for not putting in more relevant information. I see another Freeper filled you in somewhat about Abrahamson. I’ve been following the Wisconsin court saga since Freepers have been posting about it. It’s really interesting.
Here’s one of the more volatile incidents to get you started, if you’re so inclined.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124546064.html
One of the liberal justices, Bradley, claimed Prosser, a conservative, put her in a choke hold while they were having a meeting at the court with all the justices except one present. The liberal justices claimed he put her in a choke hold, the conservative justices claimed she ran at him and he put his hands up to ward her off and his hand came in contact with her neck. If it interests you there’s lots more to google about it.
These Wisconsin liberals are nuts!
Snigger. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to Abrahamson's insanity. Her hatred is probably the only thing that's keeping her alive.
The mere fact that she would even file the lawsuit, let alone appeal the decision, shows that she lacks any understanding of the law, and is too stupid to be a judge..
I cannot express my disgust strongly enough!
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
I think there are a lot of folks out there these days who don’t grasp the basic concepts to being a judge.
Disgusting, time to jettison both of those byotchs
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.