Gov. Evers speaks to all women promoting Choice, even abortion opponents. Republicans push Punishment their way.

The gerrymandered Republicans grotesque sense of entitlement is showing. These artificially created winners of the legislature now actually believe they really are the legitimate choice of voters. 

Point #1; Governor Evers supports CHOICE, which represents ALL women in Wisconsin, even abortion opponents. And polling, year after year, has supported choice by a whopping 58 to 60 percent.  

But in Bizarro World, where everything is just the opposite...

...the preposterous phony outrage spewed by meme governor candidate Rebecca Kleefisch, who only represents the 35 percent who oppose all or most abortions, she's thinks she speaks for all women because, well, she is a woman:

Kleefisch says she doesn’t specifically support adding exceptions for rape or incest to the state’s 1849 abortion ban. “I will stand with the 1849 law that includes the exception for the health of the mother.”

The 1849 Upside Downers (Stranger Things reference): The arrogance is so obvious and the entitlement so overwhelming that she thinks 35 percent of abortion ban supporters speaks for all women. 

The social implications will be dramatic now and a lot later, burdening women with the high cost of having a baby, maternity cost, childcare, probable penalties requiring work or minimum job searches to receive Medicaid or food stamps, and ultimately keeping women out of the work force. Especially at a time of low birthrates and labor shortages. Imagine keeping in contact with your rapist for child support for the rest of your life. Brutal. 

"Pro-life" groups are now talking about funding some of the above services to lessen the impact of this decision around an election. We'll keep watching.

Gov Evers support of Choice represents ALL Women: There really is no other way to look at this. Choice does represent everyone, even 1849 Upside Downers:

Actually, Gov. Evers was even more to the point...

Elizabeth Warren best Response: When I was in advertising, the biggest thing you could was first define your opponent. For every Democrats wondering how that's done, here a BIG lesson from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who identifies and defines her opponent first, showing genuine outrage, making it the first and last impression for the listener. THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE:

A few extra notes...

 

Conservative Activist Supreme Court Gerrymandering decision will likely throw US into chaos.

We are now witnessing the kind of country Republicans have been pushing for in the last 40 years. Make no mistake, the following steps to demolish our representative democracy is on the Republicans. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is now stacked with conservative justices that will predictably vote in favor of their predetermined agenda.

Citizens United Chaos: Think about it, the activist conservative court got to see what happened after their decisions, and the chaos introduced by Citizens United alone. It was based on the 14th Amendment's all "citizens born" and "naturalized"...does that describe corporations? Or does that sound more like a living constitutional interpretation, the kind conservatives hate so much?

A recent study found 81 percent of surveyed individuals supported a constitutional 

amendment overturning the Court’s decision.

The dissent: "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters."

The Second Amendment Chaos: Literalists/Strict Constructionism "refers to a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation." Where does the amendment specifically mention "guns?" It doesn't, but even if it did, conservative Justices again used a "living constitutional" interpretation saying the old muskets back then are equivalent to high velocity automatic or semi-automatic weapons today. That's strict constructionism? In fact, they rewrote the Second Amendment, as noted below. Now the Justices are getting to see the result of their activist ideological legislation from the bench:

The collective side thinks the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well-regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups ... the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. 

Cases heard before 1900 cemented the court's opinion that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 ... the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The Justices must be proud of this one:

Gun deaths in the U.S. have reached a record high, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the research,39,773 people were fatally shot in 2017, a figure that has grown by more than 10,000 people since 1999.

The Voting Rights Act Debacle: Who knew that racism died 50 years ago, and that outdated laws like the Voting Rights Act were no longer needed. Well, after the conservative activist Supreme Court gutted the Act, they should have witnessed the sudden onslaught of voting restrictions nationwide in Republicans states allowing specific demographic targeting of voters. No concerns...again:

Chief Justice John Roberts voted in the majority in striking down elements of the Voting Rights Act in a 2013 case. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that ”our country has changed,” and that blanket federal protection wasn’t needed to stop discrimination.

8 of the 15 states, or 53 percent, passed or implemented voting restrictions since June 25, compared to 3 of 35 states that were not covered under Section 5—or less than 9 percent.

Gerrymandering's Slip into One Party Rule: I predict that allowing politicians to pick their voters instead of the other way around, is the next poison pill getting the conservative activist thumbs up. Once they rule that it's okay for elected politicians to protect their power and turf, the story of the U.S. will be taking an even uglier turn. They will again witness, without concern, the chaos their decision will have on the nation.

With Kennedy replaced on the bench by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, most experts agree new limits on gerrymandering are no more likely this time around. Legal experts suspect the Supreme Court will decide that political maps need to be resolved by state legislatures, not courts—opening up the possibility of more blatant gerrymandering for the foreseeable future.

Legal experts think it’s unlikely that SCOTUS will punt on the issue this time around. As Talking Points Memo notes, procedural shortcomings in previous cases have been addressed, the facts being presented are clear, and the court has packaged the two separate cases together to “hear all the possible perspectives on what a judicially reasonable standard for determining a partisan gerrymandering might be.”

"The case presents the most extreme, overt and brutal partisan gerrymander this court — or any other court — has ever seen," said Emmet Bondurant, the attorney for Common Cause, which sued to have the North Carolina map thrown out.

But Jason Torchinsky, an attorney with the National Republican Redistricting Trust, a GOP group, said the Supreme Court shouldn’t try to take politics out of the redistricting process, as long as legislators don’t draw complicated districts that split cities and counties or aren’t otherwise logical. “Is drawing for political success okay? As long as you’ve respected other districting principles, I think the answer is yes,” said Torchinsky. 

“If the court doesn’t step in here, then what you saw in North Carolina and what you saw in Maryland is the new normal. It becomes ‘Mad Max’ territory,” said Levitt. “It is abundantly clear that the legislators can’t police themselves.”

Kavanaugh is the Total Destruction of the U.S. Supreme Court...now that's trying out something different, right voters?

One thing we finally did confirm during Brett Kavanaugh judiciary hearing rant was that Republican nominees really are just partisan and prejudicial activists pushing a legislative agenda from the nations highest court, something we knew but was hidden under the guise of strict constructionism (which by itself is conservative mumbo-jumbo). Here's the video clip to document the end of the nations highest court:

Kavanaugh: "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

Only now is the press gathering up the courage to call into question Kavanaugh's temperament and partisan rant promising "what goes around comes around."  

Possible Impeachment? If not just for the politicization of the Supreme Court by activists like Kavanaugh, Democrats will most likely go after Kavanaugh for lying to Senators during his confirmation hearings:

The House would investigate Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh if he's confirmed to the court and the Democrats take back the majority. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations certainly of perjury and other things that haven’t properly been looked into before," Rep. Jarrold Nadler said on ABC's "This Week." "We cannot have a justice on the Supreme Court for the next several decades … who has been credibly accused of sexual assaults."

And there's a lot of misdirects, lies and non-answers to cover, as shown here by this Vox chart on the right. He's no unbiased player either:

Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush’s 2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for Bush’s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel’s investigation into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes.

And some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.” “One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’” A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument.

Here's a twitter history documenting the total destruction of the Judicial Branch of government once and for all. Let's hope the Democrats find the courage to impeach Kavanaugh:

"Wow!" The beacon of light just went out in America!

When Republicans got away with holding up Obama's supreme court nomination and were rewarded in the elections for doing it, you kinda got a bad feeling about the future. Well, welcome to that future.

I tweeted this: "I'm assuming that quality of life got a whole lot better for Trump Party voters, now what's your excuse?"  Who would have thought the white nationalist Trump travel ban would get a big thumbs up from EVERY conservative justice, rationalizing away and rejecting the religious discrimination claims.

Like many of their other conservative activist decisions, the court selectively rejected the more unlikable fact: 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion,  that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers' claim of anti-Muslim bias.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the minority, "History will not look kindly on the court's misguided decision today, nor should it ... a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus." (The majority arrived at the opposite result by) "ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens." Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.

Twitter woke up abruptly this morning:

This was on top of a major Texas gerrymandering decision, ignored by the media, hinting at how it will eventually decide the Wisconsin case:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld nearly all aspects of a Texas redistricting plan adopted in 2013, ruling that lower courts went too far in concluding that the maps were tainted by an intent to discriminate against Latino voters. The 5-4 decision split the court along its usual ideological lines. The vote tracked with the justices' decision last September to temporarily block the lower court’s ruling requiring the maps to be withdrawn.

Justice Sotomayer had this dissenting response:

"The Court today goes out of its way to permit the State of Texas to use maps that the three-judge District Court unanimously found were adopted for the purpose of preserving the racial discrimination that tainted its previous maps," she wrote.

Back to today's decision, here's more of Roberts decision exhibiting a big glob of authoritarianism:

Roberts said, "the government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive. Because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification." 

 Here's a screenshot of Justice Sotomayor's dissent:

Educators Opposed Trump Policy: The conservative Justices ignore a large body of evidence proving the policies negative consequences on education and innovation. Having seen for myself the large and diverse number of foreign students and teachers at the UW-Madison campus, I will bet this ruling will have a profound negative educational and technological effect on our country. I've talked to a number of students that were sent here by their countries to gain the expertise needed so they could return and improve their own nations economies and quality of life. Forget that now...:

EdWeek: The teachers' unions, higher education groups, and at least 30 colleges and universities had joined friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the challenge to the so-called travel ban.

Justice Breyer, in dissent, noted that there are numerous people who qualify for visa waivers from the affected countries, including students and children. "Unfortunately there is evidence that ... the government is not applying the proclamation as written," Breyer said.

He cited friend-of-the-court briefs filed on the challengers' side by some 30 colleges and universities as well as one by labor groups that was signed by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

Sotomayor said the plaintiffs have shown substantial evidence that there will be, among other harms, "constraints to recruiting and retaining students and faculty members to foster diversity and quality within the university community." She cited several of the court's school precedents regarding "a principle at the heart of the establish­ment clause, that government should not prefer one reli­gion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Wisconsin's Republican Supreme Court Justices say, $10,000 or more in campaign contributions would never buy their vote! Don't Laugh....

Excuse me, where does the Constitution spell out money as free speech? 

Thanks to Scalia's Supreme Court, we're all supposed to believe that unlimited amounts of money won't buy someones gratitude or earn them special favor. "Money corrupts" was always a meaningless silly old saying, at least according to big monied special interests in Washington. 

Every one of the states conservative justices feigned outrage over the suggestion of influence: 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out a proposal to create formal recusal rules for judges and justices in the state ... 5-2, with Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley opposed ... the court's conservative-leaning majority voting to throw the petition out and the liberal-leaning wing voting to hold a public hearing on it, or adopt it immediately (for) all elected judges in the state who serve in municipal court, circuit court, the Court of Appeals or the state Supreme Court.

Despite being a national embarrassment, our dysfunctional state supreme court added to their legend by insulting our intelligence, saying campaign donations of $10,000 and over would never influence their decisions from the bench. Silly us to think that, or think that there is at least an appearance of impropriety. Remember, these are Republican Justices in the pocket of special interests who paid for their winning campaigns. Why would they would they ever have to recuse themselves? Crazy us?

It proposed specific contribution thresholds for when a judge or justice would have to recuse himself or herself from a case ... if they received $10,000 from a group or individual with a case in front of the court.

Our silent until now, recently elected (unopposed) Justice Ziegler had this to rub in our faces, like we're dumb enough to believe her;

Justice Annette Ziegler: “The petitioners here have asked us to do something that doesn’t comport with the Constitution as I view it. Is there precedent that supports this somehow? And the answer is no.”

(The) 60 comments on the petition submitted to the court. (means there's) high degree of public interest that warrants a public hearing on the issue, said Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. “What is so threatening about that?” 

Justice Rebecca Bradley said the premise of the petition is false and an affront to the oath taken by Supreme Court justices and judges statewide. “We cannot consider the petition. To do so violates the oath that each of us took when we took our office.” It also disenfranchises voters statewide who should be free to contribute to judicial candidates without repercussions, she said. “It asks us to infringe the First Amendment rights of the people of Wisconsin who wish to support candidates,” she said.

The Supreme Court lost the Public Trust a Long Time Ago: This just continues, without accountability, the public's complete lack of faith in the judicial branch of our government. Mission accomplished Republicans: 

Abrahamson called for a public hearing on the petition and Walsh Bradley called for it to be adopted immediately. Both motions were voted down after some discussion, which was tense at times. 

“The issue is so important and to shut it down without a hearing and without comment just undermines the public trust and confidence that is so important for the integrity of this court,” said Walsh Bradley. “It goes to the heart of who we are as a court and what we believe.”

And you wonder why voters don't trust the government. We can thanks our conservative activist Justices...maybe with donation exceeding $10,000?

Republicans say Conservative Activist Judges are better than Liberal Activist Judges.

Republican have no shame. Let's take a look at their hypocritical stand on judicial activism and the disturbing silence by the media and Democrats .

First, didn’t we have impartial judges once upon a time? Second, why are we supposed to assume conservative activist judges are better than liberal activist judges?

The Republican point is, once you accept the idea that everyone is a strict partisan, activism is no longer a problem. 

That's when you get what Sen. John McCain puked out of his face hole the other day:

McCain pledged that Senate Republicans would unite against any Supreme Court nominee that a hypothetical President Clinton would try to get confirmed. "I promise you that we will, we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton — if she were president — would put up. This is why we need the majority." 

Yea, if only Republicans had a one party system where they could ignore everyone else and politically poison everything, including the judicial branch. That would bring us back to where the founding fathers hoped we'd be as a nation. Imagine if there were two or three justices openings?

In an LA Times opinion "GOP obstructionism gone haywire: No new Supreme Court justices until the next Republican president?" they offered this:

"...it also could backfire by giving the next president an even freer hand in shaping the Supreme Court. Some might call that poetic justice."

Even scarier, the idea that a complete narcissist sociopath would be praised for his own choices for the court…oh, never mind:

Trump has earned praise from some conservatives for floating roughly 20 names, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), as potential Supreme Court nominees should he win the White House. 

Yup, Sen. Mike Lee. Why? Holy crap, look at his credentials:

1. He wants to do away with the 14th and 17th Amendment.

2. He thinks the Supreme Court should rule child labor laws as unconstitutional.

3. Federal Disaster Relief and FEMA should be deemed unconstitutional.

4. Social Security should be unconstitutional.

5. The Violence Against Women Act is also unconstitutional. 

6. Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional.

7. The FDA and food safety programs should be shut down.

8. Lee claims that raising taxes on the rich would actually hit the poor the hardest.

9. Sen. Lee was very vocal about pushing the global economy into crisis by letting America default on its debt, unless a new Constitutional amendment was written.

10. Sen. Lee had a minister claim Obama needed to put down his Koran and “come up with his hands out” in surrender to them.

Bench Stacking Walker against bench stacking?

Republicans like Scott Walker seem to think they've successfully sold the public on supposed "unbiased" activist supreme court justices who have been members of longstanding right wing organizations, while vilifying everyone else as "liberal."

He really does think we're all that stupid, like his supporters. But seriously...

He has the balls to make that comment after again, stacking the conservative state supreme court with another lackey:

Conservative justices aren't biased, even the politically active ones like Daniel Kelly? But a simple Google search will tell you something different:

This is what passes for a fair conservative, activist, legislator justice, who'll rubber stamp right wing politics into constitutional law: 

Kelly has been closely involved with conservative legal groups. The president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society, he also sits on an advisory panel to the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty… Kelly was an adviser to state Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley's campaign (she was also a Federalist Society member) this year and served as an attorney on Prosser's campaign during a recount after he narrowly won re-election in 2011. 

He also was on the legal team that defended legislative and congressional maps that Republican lawmakers redrew in 2011. In that litigation, a panel of federal judges made changes to the districts for two Assembly districts on Milwaukee's south side after it found those maps violated the voting rights of Latinos. The other maps—which greatly favor Republicans—were left in place.

So failure to redraw districts fairly didn't disqualify this guy? He succeeded just enough to win the heart of Walker.

Walker appoints inexperienced Bigot and Racist to Supreme Court: Against Gay Marriage and Affirmative Action is Slavery.

Republicans have put “originalism” on their platforms list of judicial qualifications, a belief straight out of America’s biggest conservative think tanks, including the radical Federalist Society.

So who’s going to be the first sucker who’ll buy into Scott Walker’s amazing appointment to the Supreme Court. JS:

No Experience Walker Pick!!!

Gov. Scott Walker on Friday named a little-known Waukesha lawyer with no judicial experience to the state Supreme Court, putting Daniel Kelly on the bench and keeping in place the high court's 5-2 conservative majority.

And how else would you apply for a job you didn’t have any experience doing?

Kelly, 52, initially applied for the appointment in secret.

And of course, being a right wing bigot, racist, and secret applicant seeking a spot on the state’s supreme court, it's obvious he would never let his feelings impact his decisions.  

"The primary and only job of a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice is to apply the law as it is written and the oath that I will take will guarantee to you that my personal political beliefs and political philosophy will have no impact on that whatsoever. Those things simply have no place inside the courtroom."

Especially if you think anything like Kelly. He would have you believe a guy with the following issues could be impartial. Check out this verbose and pompous master of word salad elitism. Stunning:

A 2014 book chapter in which he wrote same-sex marriage would rob marriage of any meaning … 

"Affirmative action and slavery differ, obviously, in significant ways," Kelly wrote. "But it's more a question of degree than principle, for they both spring from the same taproot. Neither can exist without the foundational principle that it is acceptable to force someone into an unwanted economic relationship. Morally, and as a matter of law, they are the same."

You'd have to be an idiot or a Republican voter to not think something was terribly wrong. To that point, the Cap Times sized up why, as a court pick, this is nuts.

Kelly isn’t even close to impartial, because he’s fulfilling an agenda. And get this, he's not just a member, but president of...:

....the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society … a group of conservative and libertarian attorneys who promote a specific judicial and legal approach. According to its website, this entails: “Reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values and the rule of law.

Oh, there's more...he's part of the right wing lawsuit mill Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

On affirmative action? No surprise here...:

'I believe that there is a moral and constitutional equivalence between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality.' Although the intent of affirmative action programs may be to benefit select minorities, they can and often do have the opposite effect. When the use of coercion comes unmoored from the Equality Imperative, there is nothing to prevent it from unwittingly damaging those it was meant to assist." 

And on marriage and that imagined "equal protection" under the law. thing..

"So what happens in a throw-down between the traditional institution of marriage and one reimagined primarily in terms of fairness? A recent case before the United States Supreme Court shows it’s a monumental mismatch: the multimillennial institution went down without landing a punch. The case was United States v. Windsor, and the question before the Court was whether our federal governors may define marriage as something subsisting between one man and one woman. In saying 'no,' the Court illuminated the power and destructiveness of 'justice as fairness' in the legal realm."

Justice Blocking Republicans hoping to appoint Right Winger to Court, whine Ginsburg too Partisan in recent comments - Part 2

I thought this detailed look at the right wing hypocrisy and intended politicization of our nations courts touched on all the right points when it came to the phony outrage over Justice Ginsburg's Trump comments. This piggybacks off my first piece.  Huffington Post:

While Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for her remarks on Donald Trump last week, politicians and the media who did backflips to criticize her are rewriting history. Strong, opinionated women, like “The Notorious RBG,” are always criticized. Her comments deserve a deeper analysis beyond subjective punditry or sanctimonious Tweets. 

It is worth watching Lawrence O’Donnell’s piece taking the issue out of the headlines and putting it in context. There has been clear precedent for Supreme Court involvement in elections prior to Justice Ginsburg’s opining.

The first justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, ran for Governor of New York twice during his service. Three other Supreme Court justices ran for presidential nominations while serving and continued to serve after they lost their campaigns. 

As O’Donnell points out, a surprisingly erroneous Washington Post piece said, “Supreme Court experts I’ve spoken to were unaware of any justices getting so directly and vocally involved — or involved at all, really — in a presidential campaign.”

In 2000, Justice Antonin Scalia was the justice who stopped the recount in Florida with an unprecedented injunction favoring George Bush. He then was one of the five Republicans on the Court who overruled the Florida Supreme Court and installed George Bush in the White House. 

The vast majority of the 5-4 decisions since the Justice Rehnquist era, when Republicans had the Court majority, have not deviated from GOP orthodoxy and favoritism. For instance, the Citizens United decision overwhelmingly results in more financial support on behalf of Republican candidates.

In 2004, it was public knowledge that Justice Scalia had a friendly and personal relationship with Dick Cheney, and yet would not recuse himself on a case involving the then-vice president. “In a 21-page memorandum filled with scorn and with lessons in the ways of Washington, Justice Scalia wrote that if people assumed a duck hunting trip would be enough to swing his vote, ‘the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined,’”(New York Times).

The media states again and again that the Supreme Court stays out of politics, but actions speak louder than words. Justice Samuel Alito has not attended a State of the Union since President Obama critiqued the Citizens United decision in 2010.

Gary Legum writing for Salon says, "For us to continue pretending that the third co-equal branch of our government can somehow remain immune to the highly polarized atmosphere of the other two is to infantilize the American public.

If we are comfortable enough labeling our Supreme Court justices as either “liberal” or “conservative”... If we are so comfortable with assuming that an established and accomplished judge such as Merrick Garland, for instance, with a long resume of impartiality on the bench is nothing more than a political football to be tossed around by Republicans... If we are truly happy to accept these labels and partisan plays with the Supreme Court, is it actually surprising or so wrong that a distinguished, 23-year-serving justice should hold a personal opinion? 

The actions of Justice Scalia are lauded and Justice Ginsburg is immediately criticized. There is one big difference — Ginsburg is a woman.

Justice Blocking Republicans hoping to appoint Right Winger to Court, whine Ginsburg too Partisan in recent comments.

The moment Republicans promised, as a party, to nominate a conservative justice to the Supreme Court was the day they gave up the right to complain about liberal judges and any suggested expectation of impartiality.

Republicans individually have demanded activist judges and justices before, even allowing judge shopping here in Wisconsin, but this latest example of faux outrage takes the cake.

The Republican point of no return came when they blocked Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia, hoping a Republican president would insert an activist believer in "originalism," a wildly conservative concept pushed by all the diehard Birch Society loyalists now comfortably at home in the Federalist Society.

So cry me a river guys....

Gulp, Ginsburg truthfulness and sense of humor is a troubling issue to Republicans who have troubling issues with Trump as their nominee:

The Supreme Court justice told the AP she couldn't imagine what the country would be like under Trump and joked to the New York Times about moving to New Zealand ... could end up forcing her to recuse herself from future cases involving a President Trump—or election cases like a potential Clinton vs. Trump recount.

Conservative justices and judges have already argued that comments, personal appearances at groups appearing before them and monied special interests backing elections and appointments is no reason for recusal...so what's their beef?  

As for Trump's reaction? Wouldn't it be nice if she quit?

"It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.”

Here are more links provided by a comment to a NY Times editorial bashing Ginsburg:

Where was their outrage over the MANY, MANY partisan events and partisan tropes attended by and headlined by conservative justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito?  
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/26/14065... 
 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/20/13986... 
 http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/20/scotus.conf...  
All the raging of the right wing noise machine don't set aside the FACT that the court is as politically divided as the rest of the country and that the downfall BEGAN with the likes of Scalia and Thomas. 
 http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/co...  

Dumb Ron Johnson wants "originalist" Justices, prefers 8-0 decisions on all Supreme Court Decisions in future!!!

It was odd to hear Scott Walker, lackey AG Brad Schimel and Dumb Ron Johnson all declare “victory” over the Supreme Courts actual split 4-4 non-decision over Obama’s executive order on immigration. 

After all, the Republican blockade to nominate a new justice created the courts deadlock.

But the weirdest, most honest and detached from reality reaction was from Ron Johnson. Latching on to the dangerous notion that the Democratic left is an actual enemy of the state, hell bent on destroying American exceptionalism, Johnson laments not having a politically tilted conservative court with 8 “originalist” activist justices all deciding the same thing. 

  

I know, crazy isn't it. Johnson made the claim like it was just commonly accepted public sentiment:

Johnson Responds to Split Court Ruling Blocking Obama’s Executive Immigration Order“I’m pleased the lower court’s decision that effectively blocked the president’s executive action granting legal presence and immigration benefits for up to 4 million illegal immigrants has been upheld.  President Obama clearly exceeded his legal authority. 

The fact that this decision was split speaks to a larger, more depressing issue — the politicization of the Supreme Court.  

Here's Johnson's mind blowing authoritarian one-party illogic: 

If the court contained only judges instead of super-legislators, today’s ruling would have been 8-0. This split political decision demonstrates why the American people need to decide the direction of the court through their votes for president and Senate in November."

That's the new thinking; we're not talking about impartial justices anymore. Instead, we're supposed to be choosing the direction of the entire court...politically.

Republican admission Supreme Court just political tool, would anger Chief Justice Roberts.

There is no precedent for what Republicans are doing to delay the nomination of Obama's justice pick. The fact that they've come clean, like it wasn't obvious with all the GOP lawsuits in front of the court, they expected a certain, activist outcome, and got it most of the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts noticed, and said what most of us have been saying for centuries. The trolls will be bumping into walls after this one...:

Ten days before Justice Antonin Scalia died, launching the political battle over who would fill his vacancy, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a speech slamming the Supreme Court nomination process. In remarks at Boston's New England Law, The New York Times reportsthat Roberts denounced the politicization of the process that he says is really just meant to ensure that nominees are qualified for the job.

"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans," the chief justice said, "and I think it's a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process."

Roberts pointed out that while nominees back in his day were easily confirmed, the last three justices — Samuel Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — have all faced split votes from the Senate. "Look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court and the votes were, I think, strictly on party lines for the last three of them, or close to it, and that doesn't make any sense," Roberts said. "That suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees."

President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court last week, despite Republicans' promises that they will deny any Obama nominee in favor of letting the next president fill the vacancy. 

Dumb Ron Johnson: "If a conservative president's replacing a conservative justice..." to hell with "precedent."

Since there's no right wing principle that can't be reversed (because Republicans have different rules when they're in power), trolls who are easily convinced that something is true if it's repeated enough, are sticking to the fabrication that there is precedent for not nominating a supreme court justice in a presidents final year. I feel a little dumber just typing that. This suddenly got tweets:

Still clinging to their guns, god and lies, who cares about the truth. First, PolitiFact already decided this one:

False, but who cares. Liberal media right?

But as it turns out, "precedent" isn't the real reason, as if most of us didn't already know that. Here's Dumb Ron Johnson with the bubble bursting truth:

TPM: Johnson was asked on Wisconsin radio show "Morning Mess" about Senate Republicans' refusal to consider President Obama's forthcoming nomination to the Supreme Court. The host hypothesized that things would be different if Mitt Romney were in the White House.

"It’s a different situation. Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you’re replacing — if a conservative president’s replacing a conservative justice, there’s a little more accommodation to it."

Oops, and for added measure, why not freely admit the court is a partisan right wing arm of the Republican Party too:

"But when you're talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let's face it, I don't think anybody's under any illusion — President Obama's nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court. And that's the concern is that our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty, will be threatened."

The great American truth teller Sen. Elizabeth Warren was just as stunned as I was:

Warren: "I mean, what's it gonna take for these guys. Ron Johnson today said 'well, if it were a Republican president, yea, we'd feel differently about doing that vote.' I mean, can you be any more naked about what's going on? That there is no point of principle here for those guys. This is naked politics."

Remember when justices were supposed to impartial? Not a lot of people do today. The same reasoning went into eliminating the Government Accountability Board overseeing elections in Wisconsin; it was replaced by partisan political hacks because basically no one is really ever impartial anymore, so screw it.

 Which brings me to Judge Richard Posner's comments that sum up what's really going on:

WaPo: Richard A. Posner is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit:

The decision of the Republican Senate majority to consider no nominee of President Obama to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court ... is significant, but not for the usual reasons given ... the Senate’s action lies in reminding us that the Supreme Court is not an ordinary court but a political court, or more precisely a politicized court, which is to say a court strongly influenced in making its decisions by the political beliefs of the judges. 

Most of what the Supreme Court does — or says it does — is “interpret” the Constitution and federal statutes, but I put the word in scare quotes because interpretation implies understanding a writer’s or speaker’s meaning, and most of the issues that the court takes up cannot be resolved by interpretation because the drafters and ratifiers of the constitutional or statutory provision in question had not foreseen the issue that has arisen. This is notoriously the case with respect to the Constitution ... Eighteenth- and 19th-century politicians, and many 20th-century ones as well, did not foresee or make provision for regulating electronic surveillance, sound trucks, flash-bang grenades, gerrymandering, child pornography, flag-burning or corporate donations to political candidates.

When judges are not interpreting, they’re creating, and to understand judicial creation one must understand first of all the concept of “priors.” Priors are attitudes, presuppositions derived from upbringing, from training, from personal and career experience, from religion and national origin and character and ideology and politics ... they are impervious to evidence ... their priors will tug them this way or that, and the tug may be decisive ... bowing to the inevitable is not misconduct, however much it deviates from the “official” — the self-protective “the law made me do it” — conception of judicial decision-making.

The Republican senators’ behavior is proof (were any needed) of the Supreme Court’s politicization.

My conservative friend in Milwaukee had this response to Posner's opinion...I wish I was kidding, or at least he was:

For the record, never forget how every Republican presidential candidate went along with an attempt to sabotage the country for their own selfish political gain, offering up second grade excuses for the delay:

Behold Bradley's sense of entitlement; "I deserve a little more respect than I'm receiving," after disrespecting AIDS victims & calling them degenerates.

I nearly spit out my coffee this morning after hearing a miffed Rebecca "bigot" Bradley whine about supporter frustration over a little hate speech. Poor baby. This is a hybrid form of the Fox News trick "some say...:" Wisconsin Public Radio:

"They cannot understand why the media is going after me like this. They cannot understand why the media is going after me like this. I'm somebody who has put myself out there to serve the people of Wisconsin, and I deserve a little more respect than I'm receiving." 

That's a fine example of Bradley's "hot headed" temperament. After JoAnne Kloppenburg pointed out how Bradley continues to espouse right wing positions on the issues (like contraception is murder), Bradley blew up and childishly attacked Kloppenburg (at 2:21)...not exactly the kind of behavior you want to see on the bench. The Milwaukee Bar Association Forum :



Bradley's "orginalist philosophy" is the preposterous idea that only conservative judges and justice know exactly what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution.

Kloppenburg highlighted Bradley's volatile temperament, lack of maturity and disrespect for the litigants/attorney's appearing before the state's highest court when she left during arguments to fund raise with WMC lobbyists. With the calm and precision of a Supreme Court justice, Kloppenburg laid it all out:



After Scott Walker tried and failed to unconstitutionally silence the protesters at the Capitol with a bizarre set of permits and free speech restrictions, the state asked the Court of Appeals to insert specific language that would make the law whole again, which they refused to do. Kloppenburg is on that court and wrote the decision. The State v Crute:



On an interesting side note, Bradley is outraged that the soft spoken Kloppenburg continually brings up how Scott Walker appointed her 3 times in 3 years. Bradley said Walker was just doing his "constitutional duty" when there was a vacancy...a duty Democrats like Obama don't have I guess, especially in their last year in office. Ironic?:



Soft spoken Kloppenburg is tough. Check out her closing statement. As for Bradley, has she got a bad case of projection or what...:

Bradley:"If people instead want to be dictated to and ruled by a majority of justices that happen to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they will elect Judge Kloppenburg."  

I'd like to remind Bradley that with or without her, there's still a conservative activist majority: