WISN’s conservative talker Jay Weber Claims Dissenting Justices Agreed with Majority, Sumi Wrong.

What part of “dissenting opinion” don’t they understand?

Saying that dissent is not enough, conservative spin meister Jay Weber actually convinces his audience the entire Supreme Court bench agreed Judge Sumi ruled incorrectly. So much for the scathing rebuke by Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

In the same breath, Weber quotes Justice Abrahamson’s unambiguous wording that completely disproves his bizarre take on the court’s ruling.  And that’s only in the first minute of the audio clip below. In her dissent:

…the order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has "reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision." (The majority justices) "make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891."

 

Sure sounds like she disagrees with the activist conservative Justices ruling.

In another surreal highlight, Weber went on to complain that the cost of “idiot” protesters and court challenges amounted to more than $30 million:

Weber: “No one at the Journal Sentinel or in the news media has the least bit of curiosity at what those several weeks that the fleeing 14 in Illinois actually cost us. They have no curiosity on what Judge Sumi’s ruling actually cost us, at least $30 million. They have no curiosity on what the Capitol costs truly are. And yet we get two days of stories of how these recall elections are going to cost an extra $400,000. It’s all the Republicans fault.”

On that last point he’s right; it was the Republicans fault. They didn’t care very much about the massive protests around the Capitol and state, and took an uncompromising position on their extremist agenda.

For real insight into the conservative thought process, check out this Weber listener call:

Mike in Oconomowoc: “The left uses every single tactic they can possibly think of to subvert the Constitution and the rule of law…the fact is, we shouldn’t even be having these elections. Why aren’t they talking about cost of having them at all, there’s no reason for these elections. Why is it the left use any tactic they want, but the right can’t fight back?”

Dan on the North Side (who assumes Sumi will rule on CC and Voter ID too?): “… as a conservative, it’s frustrating because even if she gets censured and she gets removed, we all know the kind of judge that is going to replace her because it’s in Dane County. It’s a little frustrating.”


Weber: “It absolutely is.”

So much for the voting public’s right to choose judges.  Authoritarian much?

This clip of presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty’s proud admission shows how upfront and hypocritical conservatives are about their own activist judges. Can you imagine a Democrat making this claim:

WSJ: In her dissent, Abrahamson … singled out Prosser, whose concurrence, she wrote, "is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant." Abrahamson said she agreed with Justice Patrick Crooks' separate dissent, that the case should come to the Supreme Court as part of an "orderly appellate review of the circuit court's order with a full opinion."

"Only with a reasoned, accurate analysis can a court assure the litigants and the public that a decision is made on the basis of facts and law, free from a judge's personal ideology and free from external pressure by the executive or legislative branches, by partisan political parties, by public opinion or by special interest groups."

Crooks wrote that the majority reached "a hasty decision" that doesn't address important questions about the Legislature's constitutional requirements … "Those who would rush to judgment on these matters are essentially taking the position that getting this opinion out is more important than doing it right and getting it right," he wrote. "It is rather astonishing that the court would choose to decide such an unusual and complex case without benefit of a complete record."