Posted on 01/22/2015 6:04:22 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
The Wisconsin state Senate has just paved the way for the state Supreme Court to elect its own chief justice—and the conservatives’ pick might shake up the governor’s own case.
Eighty-one-year-old Shirley Abrahamson has been chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for 18 years, but that tenure looks like it’s about to come to an abrupt end.
A state constitutional amendment, passed Tuesday in the state Senate 17-14 along strict party lines, will allow the court’s seven justices to vote on a chief justice, undoing a 126-year-old tradition that grants the post to the longest-serving justice on the bench. If the bill passes the state Assembly and wins voter approval April 7, the next chief justice, selected by the court’s conservative majority, will almost certainly be Justice Pat Roggensack.
Justice Roggensack may not yet be chief, but she has already led the Wisconsin Supreme Court through an era of remarkable procedural change. The court’s justices are elected and run campaigns, complete with TV ads, one of which earned Justice Michael Gableman an ethics charge in 2009. Most important, the justices can establish political committees to accept donations on their behalf from individuals, corporations, and what remains of Wisconsin’s unions.
In 2010, Justice Roggensack and the three other conservatives on the bench ruled that, “a judge shall not be required to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or the judge’s campaign committee’s receipt of a lawful campaign contribution, including a campaign contribution from an individual or entity involved in the proceeding.” The ruling, which was met with an angry dissent from Chief Justice Abrahamson and the other liberal justices, dictates that a justice can rule on a case—or at least cannot be forced to recuse himself—even if one of the parties in the case contributed to that justice’s campaign committee.
Justices are free to rule on cases involving parties that spent independently on the justices’ behalf in addition to those donating directly to candidate committees.
What might appear to be a fairly straightforward model for corruption of the judiciary is, according to Justice Roggensack, completely legitimate. Channeling the U.S. Supreme Court’s Justice Anthony Kennedy, the conservatives ruled that such an arrangement does not undermine public confidence in the court, nor does it promote the appearance of corruption. Instead, they maintained that if justices were forced to recuse themselves, groups could force them off cases by donating to their campaigns or running ads on their behalf. The conservative justices also made the remarkable argument that a Supreme Court justice’s recusal “alters the number of justices reviewing a case as well as the composition of the court.”
Justice Roggensack and her Supreme allies’ dealings with conflicts of interest do not end there. The court agreed last year to hear a case resulting from the much-publicized “John Doe” investigation into possible violations of campaign finance law by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign during the recall elections of 2011 and 2012. That investigation has faced considerable opposition from the governor’s office, as might be expected. But it also has run into sustained legal challenges from outside political groups, resulting in numerous delays and moratoriums on the investigation.
Among those groups are Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. Both are named among the outside political groups with which the Walker campaign is alleged to have coordinated. Both ran so-called issue ads in support of Walker that disparaged his opponents. And, along with another group called Citizens for a Strong America, both have contributed more than $8 million to elect the four conservative justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The 2010 ruling helped those justices build a platform to justify their participation in the John Doe case. Scot Ross, a liberal activist and head of One Wisconsin Now, called the decision a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for powerful interests that invest in Supreme Court races. “The vast majority of spending to elect these four justices was done by these entities,” Ross told the Wisconsin State Journal.
In 2011, “$3 out of every $4” spent to elect Justice David Prosser, a member of the court’s conservative wing, came from outside groups. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce spent $1.1 million on Justice Prosser’s behalf, while Club for Growth dished out $520,000. He is now expected to rule impartially in a case alleging that both of those groups broke the law.
At the top of the 2010 decision to reform the recusal procedures, there is an explanation of how the case came to be. “On September 30, 2008, and October 16, 2009, the Wisconsin Realtors Association, Inc. and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, respectively, petitioned this court to amend the Code of Judicial Conduct.” Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce sought the rule change after another justice, Annette Ziegler, came under fire for hearing a case pushed by the group after it had spent $2.2 million to get her elected. The ruling makes clear in Section 2 that justices are free to rule on cases involving parties that spent independently on the justices’ behalf in addition to those donating directly to candidate committees.
The state Assembly is expected to take up and pass the constitutional amendment on chief justice selection Thursday, in time for it to make the April 7 election ballot as a referendum. Spring elections are notorious for their low turnout—19 percent voted in April 2013—and the measure is expected to succeed. The court will likely have a new chief justice just in time for its ruling on the John Doe case, expected to be issued this summer.
For their part, the Republicans in the state legislature insist the amendment is not partisan. “This is not about the current chief justice,” said the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Tom Tiffany. “I believe this is the most appropriate way for our chief justice to be named.” A parallel Senate bill, an amendment that would establish age limits for Supreme Court justices that would remove Chief Justice Abrahamson, 81, from the court altogether, would appear to belie that notion.
Either way, Abrahamson’s tenure as chief justice is likely over, as is the liberal minority’s primary means of asserting itself. The chief justice has no more power than the associates but can delay decisions she disagrees with using procedural tools. Abrahamson, and much of the strength to resist the tightening grip of special interests, seems to be fading away.
Mr. Walker is an open border kind of guy. I’ll bet he is in favor of increasing H1-b visa quotas. Sucks, because all of the potential ‘16 nominees are like that. Probably will not vote for Pres in ‘16. Chamber of Commerce K street sell outs.......
He is not a TALKER, he’s THE WALKER!
Spreading your manure proves that there are a number here, who have been here long-term, that would absolutely hate for us to gain any footholds - everything they do is designed to ensure the Left makes more headway while we piss and moan about it.
Exactly right!
By Judson Philips (TEA Party)
Excerpt:
What is it about Republican elected officials? They want to commit political suicide. The only problem is that they want to take the nation with them. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has come out in favor of political suicide by supporting a pathway for citizenship for illegal aliens.
Somewhere below your post, someone will suggest Walker is soft on immigration or dredge up a lie that he supports abortion and they’ll try to pee all over him. Walker is quietly amassing a fantastically conservative reputation of lower taxes, less government interference, all with a religious undertone. But here at the FreeRepublic, that simply won’t be good enough.
Republicans control at least 60 of the 99 Assembly seats. The senate was where there were potential challenges. the assembly will pass this without a problem.
Please expand on his idea for a pathway to citizenship. Too many on here throw this term out without an explanation of the plan involved.
Moves afoot to change the way the Chief Justice of Wisconinsin’s Supreme Court is chosen. Bye, bye Shirley!
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
They all do. Get use to it.
#25 Hear! Hear!
BTW: I donated to Walker. I will donate again.
“But here at the FreeRepublic, that simply won’t be good enough.”
Which, in my 11 years here, I have never understood!
bttt
“But here at the FreeRepublic, that simply won’t be good enough.”
Isn’t that the truth! All these “purists” who would rather have no bread at all ( or worse) instead of half a loaf (or most likely a lot more). Unless you meet ALL OF THEIR PERSONAL CRITERIA, they stay home to SHOW US ALL HOW DISSATISFIED THEY ARE and we end up with a half-breed illegal alien Communist (twice). Seemingly, they would rather for us to continue with Obola lookalikes than give on ANY of their “PRINCIPLES.”
I read all sorts of complaints in our Wisconsin component of the site about Ron Johnson. He's just not conservative enough for people. Well, I can agree at some level, but for Pete's sake, we used to have Russ Feingold as our senator and that's who Johnson beat. Now it doesn't take much to figure out that the difference is a giant leap forward. But some here just don't care, they want the most uber conservative running for the office, or they aren't happy. I'm a Bill Buckley conservative...'vote for the most electable conservative.'
I'll wait for the purist flames to now lap at my feet.
How many of these scot walker hits are Hillary trolls?
Good point! :)
Scott walker will be intervied by Megyn Kelly on FNC in a few minutes. Subject: Obama foreign policy.
Exactly!
Thanks for the Head’s Up but I’ll have to watch it in re-wind on-line, later.
I live in Hooterville - no cable, no dish.
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.