Posted on 07/31/2015 4:14:39 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
MADISON, Wis. – A federal judge on Friday tossed out former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s civil rights lawsuit and declared Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment that forced Abrahamson out of her long-standing seat of power does indeed pass “constitutional muster.”
U.S. District Court Judge James Peterson said he wasn’t persuaded by Abrahamson’s case. His ruling puts to rest the liberal justice’s claims that the amendment approved by Wisconsin voters in April unfairly led to her ouster as chief justice.
“This court has been asked whether the immediate implementation of an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution concerning the structure of its court system offends the United States Constitution. Federal review of the action of a state—acting in its capacity as a sovereign government—is sharply limited, and the court does not require perfection of expression or purity of motive,” Peterson writes in his conclusion. “The amendment passes constitutional muster, even if implemented immediately to remove Abrahamson from the position of chief justice.”
Peterson ordered the case closed, and entered a judgement in favor of the defendants – Abrahamson’s fellow Supreme Court justices, the state, and effectively the majority of voters who approved the amendment that changed how Wisconsin’s Supreme Court chief justice is selected.
Ultimately, it means Chief Justice Patience Roggensack will remain the high court’s leader.
It’s been a legal sprint for Abrahamson, head of the court’s liberal minority, 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 she was elected to do – such as scheduling meetings and appointing staff positions. That has infuriated Abrahamson.
Peterson, an Obama nominee, in an order filed in June 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 court denied that motion, too.
In his ruling, Peterson notes the bitterness and rancor of a state Supreme Court that has become “notorious for the fractiousness of its members.”
It is a court marked by a deep philosophical divide that has led to arguments and even physical altercations between justices.
“With that history as a backdrop, the state legislature in 2013 started the process of amending the state constitution to change the method of selecting the chief justice, from seniority to election by a majority of the sitting justices,” Peterson writes.
Abrahamson and the Wisconsin citizens who signed on as plaintiffs in the suit do not challenge the amendment. They concede, “as they must (Peterson’s phrase),” that Wisconsin can change its constitution to determine how a Supreme Court justice is selected.
The plaintiffs only assert that the amendment should be interpreted so that Abrahamson can keep her job until her current term as justice is up in 2019.
“Plaintiffs contend that their interpretation is justified not only because it is a sound interpretation of the amendment under Wisconsin law, but because a contrary interpretation would run afoul of the United States Constitution, which protects plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection,” the judge writes.
Their argument is that Wisconsin voters didn’t “understand what they were voting for, and Abrahamson did not have sufficient notice that her position as chief was on the line,” Peterson adds.
“The court is not persuaded by plaintiffs’ case, for reasons explained in this opinion,” the ruling states.
Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes, the judge asserts. “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.”
In short, unless the state’s actions – in this case, the amendment – are plainly unconstitutional, Wisconsin has the “authority and autonomy to restructure its government without interference from the federal government.”
The court concludes that the state’s new method of selecting its chief justice was effective on April 29, 2015, when the referendum was certified.
Abrahamson could appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but a legal expert with knowledge of the case tells Wisconsin Watchdog that she would need incontrovertible evidence that her constitutional rights were violated.
It was the 7th Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook, that ruled conservative targets of the political John Doe investigation could not pursue their civil rights lawsuit in federal court because the investigation and the legal controversies surrounding it were matters for state courts to determine.
Hans v. Lousiana was “impairment of contract.” Abrahamson’s claim was that her civil rights were violated.
GO Wisconsin!!!!
:{)
Horrible woman
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
She pushed a brain-dead designer to oversee the reconstruction of the Capital a couple of decades ago...I was unfortunate enough to have to work with her (the designer). We did a great job in spite of her.
Bye liberal Shirley. Good riddance.
Yet another lawyer in a black robe suing to overturn a vote by the citizens.
I’m a little surprised the court ruled against her. Usually these “throw the voters choice in the garbage” cases seem to go against the voters.
Bubye
As I recall, this was the judge that ruled the Wisconwsin right to keep and bear arms constitutional amendment does not apply to laws that were passed before the amendment was. That is how they justified that someone carrying a gun in their car, was illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
It is one of the reasons that other states started putting the requirement for “strict scrutiny” in their reform of right to keep and bear arms constitutional amendments.
Wisconsin RKBA protection in the State Constitution:
Text of Section 25:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
This can’t be true...it isn’t on channel 3000 out of Madistan yet.
She won’t willingly go until a Dem governor is elected who can can replace her with another Lib Dem.
Thank God, the good guys win a case every once in a while.
YIPPEE! But, next stop? SCOTUS! She’s got all the credentials they’re looking for: Rabid Socialist. Nutty as a Fruitcake. Senile.
I’m serious. We need to keep an eye on this.
“This can’t be true...it isn’t on channel 3000 out of Madistan yet.”
Check today’s paper. Page 35Z beneath the fold, LOL!
She’s 81. She is likely to go soon enough.
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.