Tuesday, December 10, 2013

They Must Think We’re Stupid: Conservative Activist Justices pushing Constitutional Amendment putting them in Charge!!

The media, like the Journal Sentinel, must think were really that dumb. In the story below, 3 of the 4 conservative Supreme Court Activist Justices called Republican legislators urging passage of an amendment that would basically put them in charge of the court. Nothing too biased about that?

But the article isn't sure ALL of them urged passage, even though they made calls to Republican leadership, and leadership and informal discussions...about the weather? Seriously?
jsonline: State Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack contacted Republican state senators urging support of an amendment to the state constitution that could put her in charge of Wisconsin's high court.

Justice Michael Gableman also called at least one senator's office in support of changing the 124-year-old provision of the constitution that awards the job of chief justice to the most senior member of the court.
The article did state the obvious:
Lobbying for matters before the Legislature by justices is permissible, but doing so runs the risk of deepening an already yawning rift on the court.
The following doesn't pass the smell test:
Justice David Prosser also called Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) but an Ellis aide said he did not know whether Prosser had urged support for the bill.
Yea, right.

With firm majorities in the legislature and Supreme Court, there’s little reason to be subtle:
A lead sponsor of the change, Sen. Tom Tiffany (R-Hazelhurst), said he reached out to Roggensack on the proposal and she expressed support for it.

Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) originally drafted the proposal. Asked if he had written it at the urging of members of the court, he said: "I honestly can't remember because so many people wanted it done. I really can't remember who approached me first."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and his aides had "informal discussions" with some of the justices on the proposal.
“Informal discussions?” 

No comments: