Friday, April 17, 2015

Really, Justice Abrahamson is making the State Supreme Court the laughing Stock? Not the Tea Party Kangaroo Court?

Just guessing but the court became a laughing stock when the nation read about how one particular conservative justice (David Prosser) decided to choke a liberal justice (Ann Walsh Bradley) over a simple disagreement. Or when he spewed profanities and threats at the chief justice. Ya think?
   
Add to that this amazing self-promotion; swing vote Justice Patrick Crooks ripped into Chief Justice Abrahamson for challenging the new constitutional amendment allowing the conservative majority to oust her...just after throwing his hat into the chief justice ring. Would I kid you?

National laughing stock? No doubt about it.   
(Crooks) had hoped she would act with more dignity after voters approved the change."I think it's not only sad, it's unfortunate. I won't give you my view of the merits of that lawsuit, but I will tell you I think it's something that should not have been done. We've become a little bit of a laughingstock, or at least she has."

In the interview, Crooks said he was considering seeking the position of chief justice himself after some of his colleagues talked to him about it. He declined to name them.
Laughing stock? My god yes. Just as interesting, Republicans have also pushed capping the age limit to eject Abrahamson, setting it at 75 or 80. That would be bad news for Crooks:
The 76-year-old justice also held out the possibility of running for re-election next year, despite suggesting to his colleagues last year that he would not seek another 10-year term.
One Party Authority over Everything: Am I the only one who’s noticed how the conservative activist justices have wreaked havoc on the court since becoming the majority, and then have the nerve to complain about all that havoc. Didn't you know, it's those minority liberal justices again.
  
So wouldn't it be better if the conservatives took over the court, becoming team players, where one philosophy rules the day? None of that dissent stuff. Crooks said exactly that…be amazed:
Crooks distanced himself from Abrahamson, saying he had a "very different" judicial philosophy than her. Regardless, he argued the decision on who should lead the court should be about who is best able to bring members of the court together, not a "philosophical tug of war." He said he felt he could serve that function. "I view the job of chief justices I think very differently than Justice Abrahamson does. I think that the chief justice is a first among equals. I think the approach that's appropriate is that you're a team player and you try to get everyone involved in the team."
Conservative voters would never tolerate tactics like those listed above from the Democrats. Like for instance; Republican politicians actually promise to nominate only conservative candidates to the courts; only conservatives have the higher calling from God and the founding fathers; “Corporations are people too” lobbyists are encouraged to spend, and win in those decidedly corporate friendly courts.

No comments: