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.”

Legislating from bench, State Supreme Court renders Whistleblower Law Useless, protecting crime and abuse.

Its been an incredible day for news about Republican corruption and abuse of power. Each report is met with name calling and defensive tweets by lapdog followers so emotionally invested in their party that admitting fault would destroy them.  

You'd think dark money and hiding government records would have gotten their attention...but it didn't. Conservative voters are defending their Supreme Court Justices for legislating from the bench. Turns out, all that complaining about judicial activism was just a show, who knew?

Running counter to drumming out corruption and government waste was this revealing court decision that not only attacks and neuters the states whistleblower law, but protects the guilty and accused. Shepherd Express: 

State Supreme Court Gives green light to retaliate against state workers who speak up about corruption: The Supreme Court decision … is likely to strip many protections for those who report corruption or misconduct in state government … so far-reaching that it condones in some cases the firing of state employees who do the right thing despite facing opposition from their superiors.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in her dissent said, “Absent legal protections, it will be the rare employee who will risk her livelihood to act as a whistleblower … (the majority’s decision) “undermines the legislative purpose of Wisconsin’s whistleblower statute.”

It was before it suddenly wasn't:

The 3-2 Supreme Court decision found that the whistleblower law for state employees didn’t apply to and therefore wouldn’t protect a high-ranking DOJ official (like) Joell Schigur, who’d voiced concerns about the legality of then-Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s planned use of state-paid security for his appearance at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

Rewriting the law (in red), our activist conservative justices twisted into this pretzel:

The three-person majority of justices finding against; Michael Gableman, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler; found that the state’s whistleblower statute only applies to those who disclose previously unknown information about potential misconduct in state government. The trio took a very limited view of the statute, finding that Schigur only offered her “opinion,” and didn’t disclose new information about potential corruption because her superiors already knew about Van Hollen’s trip to the convention.

That odd newly constructed hurdle stood out:

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote the dissent, saying that the state Legislature passed the whistleblower law because “employees are encouraged to disclose information, including a violation of any law or regulation and any mismanagement or substantial waste of public funds” … it now “denies protection for whistleblowers.” 

Bradley wrote there’s nothing in the law that says that the disclosed information must be new, although the majority’s decision now requires it.

And like everything else "revised" or created for the Walker Authority, Republicans can now operate freely, to exploit the gaping loopholes set into law:

Shockingly, Bradley wrote that the court’s decision in some instances would protect the corrupt wrongdoer instead of the whistleblower. “For example, what if an employee reported evidence of theft to her supervisor without knowing that he was actually the thief?” Bradley wrote. “The corrupt supervisor could fire the employee and she would have no protection as a whistleblower because the information was already known.”

Vote for Justice Ann Walsh Bradley today, or get this guy...

Grumpy conservative activist judge and now supreme court justice candidate James Daley says he's got no agenda. So I thought this was funny enough to repeat here, from Cognitive Dissidence:

"Can a judge be that dishonest that he would claim to be "non partisan" and hang out daily with bitter partisans like these two? Do we really want someone in the highest court who thinks a day with Vicki Mckenna is a good day?"

The other person is Brian Schimming who was high level in the Wisconsin Republican party but recently appointed by Scott Walker as COO of WHEDA to soak the taxpayers for Cadillac benefits and $128,000/yr.

Conservative Judicial Activist Daley takes amateurish potshots at Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

Judge James Daley is right out of central right wing casting. He's a candidate for the state supreme court and a constitutional originalist, which makes him a conservative judicial activist. 

But as we all know, there's only one kind of activism that won't be tolerated; the liberal kind. Daley can't stop talking about the horrors of "liberal activism," while sternly declaring "the laws the law." Like all conservative activists, "the legislative branch should be free to do what it wants"...except when it comes to ObamaCare, Voting rights, EPA regulations, gay marriage...you know what I mean. It's their law or no law. We've seen that with the right wing attempts at nullification.

Judge Daley's conservative activism is so blatantly obvious in his very first campaign radio ad for Supreme Court Justice, that you're jaw will drop and laugh like I did. How dare someone oppose Scott Walker:

Check out Daley's appeared on WPT's Here and Now with Frederica Freyberg. His nonsensical attacks on Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, yup, she's a liberal judicial activist, are based on her dissenting decisions on voter ID and Act 10. Bradley had the gall to oppose Walker, and we also know the constitution is conservative, right?



Here's how the press release flipped the "personal political agenda" around, making it seem like Daley has no agenda at all. It's surreal beyond words:

The Daley for Wisconsin State Supreme Court campaign ... radio ad titled, “Undermining Reforms” which exposes the personal political agenda incumbent Ann Walsh Bradley has long-inserted into court actions.

“The case against Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is clear; whether it be trying to derail Act 10, obstruct Voter ID or other common-sense reforms, Bradley seemingly never passes on an opportunity to insert her personal political agenda into court decisions that impact Wisconsin,” said challenger Judge James Daley. “Wisconsin deserves a Supreme Court Justice who sets politics aside, and makes upholding the rule of law their priority.”

With Republican Congress and Supreme Court, Rand Paul says Activist Judges not so bad after all.

It’s strange how power can change your entire “supposed” principled ideological philosophy. For an authoritarian based Republican Party, reversing itself for strictly strategic reasons is political opportunism at its finest.

"Activist Judges" are GOOD!!! That’s right, after decades of bashing supposed liberal activist judges for legislating from the bench, our Republican majority is rethinking that position. Rand Paul is already testing this “sales pitch;” take “activist” liberal wins like Roe v Wade and Brown v Board and show how Republicans can repeal the Affordable Care Act and fight presidential overreach with their own activism. That would appeal to the deep conservative fear that liberals are getting something they’re not from the courts.  

National Journal: Speaking at the Heritage Action Conservative Policy Summit, Paul … took pains to explain his own legal philosophy, and to push back against what he referred to as the "tyranny of state government." He argued that it was judicial activism that struck down "separate but equal" schooling in Brown v. Board of Education. He defined Roe v. Wade—which has its 41st anniversary next week—as a competition between the rights of a mother and her child. And, naturally, he said it would take judicial activism to strike down the Affordable Care Act at the state level.

Judicial restraint—the idea that courts should only uphold or strike down laws on the strict basis of their constitutionality—is one of the cornerstones of modern conservative thought. Justice Antonin Scalia has ... has in turn been called a judicial activist for helping to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for seemingly political reasons.

Again, here’s the rationalization...the spin we might be getting in the years to come, if they maintain their majority:

As Paul's argument goes, judicial activism can be necessary, as a check against other branches of government overstepping their constitutional authority—a break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency situation. So, why try to make such a tough sell—to redefine an entire concept that has been considered unpalatable to conservatives for years … Brian Darling, a spokesman for Paul, told National Journal. "I think that he's trying to educate the crowd that there's a conservative case to be made for activism, if it's tied to spreading liberty."

Judicial activism as Paul defines it is an idea he thinks conservatives can get on board with…

Judges say you're not a serious American if you "haven't taken the necessary time" to get an ID and vote. Hey, who said life was easy?

The majority of state constitutions, including Wisconsin's, must say something like this about voting: "Voting is a complicated, difficult maze-like right we should all spend lots of time doing." Well, that's how our judicial branch is interpreting the law.

Conservative judges and justices majority opinions are telling us an awful lot about their warped politicized vision of this country, and the resentment they have toward thevoting public they serve. 

From the activists conservative Supreme Court to similar right wing judges nationwide, there's no real limit to the hoops Americans will have to jump through to exercise their constitutional right to vote. There's nothing to complicated or inconvenient, if you're serious about being a real patriot. 

All you have to do is get a photo ID, find a distant polling place before you get off of work, and stand in line for hours like the dog these judges believe you to be. If you "haven't taken the necessary time," they say, then you're not disenfranchised. 

An amazing leap of illogic? That's what makes the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals majority opinion so mindbogglingly bad. Judges are greasing the skids for their fellow Republicans lawmakers in the legislative branch, and they're not hiding their collusion one bit:  

WISC: The written decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Frank Easterbrook, Diane Sykes and John Tinder; "the public is interested in using laws enacted through the democratic process, until the laws' validity has been finally determined. If seven weeks is too short, then state officials need not make any change and nothing has been 'imposed' on them," the judges wrote. The three judges said they did not believe some 300,000 registered voters estimated not to have a qualifying photo ID would be disenfranchised
 "The number of registered voters without a qualifying photo ID thus appears to reflect how many persons have not taken the necessary time, rather than a number of persons who have been disenfranchised," the panel said. "We do not apply the label 'disenfranchised' to someone who has not elected to register." 

A breathtakingly arrogant backhand to us voters, who they accuse of not being willing to work a little harder to cast a constitutionally guaranteed ballot. Odd, the right to bare arms has a whole different set of standards. You'll notice the logic of the dissenting judges below no longer has a place in society these days:

In a strongly-worded dissent, Judge Ann Claire Williams writes that the panel "should not have altered the status quo in Wisconsin so soon before its elections. And that is true whatever one's view on the merits of the case." Williams said the court "brazenly" said that "more than 90 percent of Wisconsin's registered voters already have a qualifying ID" and it would have little impact on the majority of voters.

"But the right to vote is not the province of just the majority," Williams wrote. "It simply cannot be the answer to say that 90 percent of registered voters can still vote. To say that is to accept the disenfranchisement of 10 percent of a state's registered voters; for the state to take this position is shocking."

John Doe 2 back on?...Federal Court Reverses Conservative Activist Judge Randa.

When a conservative activist judge like Rudy Randa gets slapped around by the Federal Appeals Court like that, you've got to just scratch your head. If this were a liberal judge, we'd never hear the end of it. But "stand with Walker" trolls, tongues tied?

Judge Randa thought he could just change every law he didn't like, whether it's before him or not. That's what I would call authoritarian activism.

Surprise, Walker is still connected to the investigation, that remains on hold. WisPolitics:

A federal appeals court today reversed an injunction ending a John Doe investigation into coordination between conservative groups and Gov. Scott Walker's campaign in the recalls. 

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also reversed Judge Rudolph Randa's ruling rejecting an immunity defense by state prosecutors who were sued by targets of the investigation. The court also sent the case back to district court with instructions to dismiss the suit, "leaving all further proceedings to the courts of Wisconsin." Randa sided with the Club for Growth in issuing an injunction to halt the probe. 

But the 7th Circuit ruled today Randa improperly issued the injunction because federal law says a U.S. court may not interfere with state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 

The court did not hold back:

jsonline: "What we have said shows not only that an injunction was an abuse of discretion but also that (as prosecutors) all defendants possess qualified immunity from liability in damages," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook in the decision.

"It is not possible to treat as 'bad faith' a criminal investigation that reflects (the U.S. Supreme Court's) interpretation of the First Amendment," he wrote. "Public officials can be held liable for violating clearly established law, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue."

Because of that, prosecutors and investigators involved in the case remain immune from lawsuits, Easterbrook wrote.

Republican Leadership Committee's push for more Activist Conservative Judges and Justices.

In something you’d expect to read from some third world dictatorship, here’s the Republican State Leadership Committee’s idea of “judicial fairness,” where only conservative judges can determine if our laws are constitutional. Plus, these judges and justices are also there to shield everyone else from the liberal agenda, whose backers make up about HALF of the U.S. population. Ah, there’s not a rightwing authoritarian problem here, is there?

The following is not only unsettling, but an escalation of liberal vilification that I fear won’t end well. The tea party has set free the dark paranoid underpinnings of conservatism. From the Walker Authority:

Jill Bader: Backed by the union bosses and old corrupt centers of bureaucratic power, the enemies of the reforms sought to use the court system to thwart Walker’s legislation. They lost. However, yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court could have just as easily overturned Walker’s signature legislation. What was the difference in outcomes? Five rule of law conservative judges stood against two activist Democrats on the court … the activist Democrats’ opinions pronounced in today’s ruling betray their true intentions. The liberal Democrat judges use an ends justify the means test- whatever it takes to give the liberal Democrat Party back their centers of power, with no regard for the cost to hard working families.

The constitution protects your pocketbook, and tries to keep the price of freedom down for hard working families? Also, the last line is all projection.

The inner "rightwing authoritarian" isn't shy about politicizing and poisoning the judicial branch of government. They've actually made it sound kind of normal:

Theirs is emphatically not a rule of law test- the proper test followed by the five rule of law Republicans on the court which found Walker’s reforms constitutional. 

Yesterday highlights the crucial necessity of the Judicial Fairness Initiative. Voters should be given the information necessary to distinguish between rule of law Republican judges and liberal activist Democrat judges. Voters should be provided this information, or the reform legislation their elected representatives pass could be another innovative law struck down by activist courts, as happens every year all across the country. 

JFI is here to stay. It’s here to educate. It’s here to make a permanent impact in our courts. It’s here to protect conservative innovative reforms from liberal judges attempting to act as super legislatures. 

Conservative "innovative reforms?" Republican State Leadership Committee ironically, is bashing liberal activism based on actual conservative activism. See it HERE!

Judge Randa Blocks Media Access to John Doe 2 Documents to hide possible Walker Lawbreaking.

Republicans have touted the wonders of conservative judges and justices for the last decade. They aren't shy about nominating strictly conservative candidates. And no one seems to think that’s odd. Due to that, activist conservative judges have never felt more arrogant and powerful. They’re now rewriting law and legislating from the bench. Like Judge Rudy Randa.

Referenced in a nice piece at Rock Netroots, it appears Judge Rudy Randa’s partisan nature bubbled over:

Wisconsin Reporter: In a scorching critique, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Randa verbally hammers the prosecutors in a politically charged John Doe investigation for seeking “refuge in the Court of Public Opinion, having lost in this Court of law.” The federal judge’s stinging assessment of the prosecutors-turned defendants in a civil rights lawsuit came in a ruling Thursday that rejects in part unsealing a raft of records related to the investigation, a move that Randa believes is needed to protect two unnamed intervenors in the matter.

The prosecutors, in a filing last month, criticized conservative activist Eric O’Keefe and his Wisconsin Club for growth ... “(It is) beyond irony that the plaintiffs and their counsel now ask the Court to block media access to the documents that outline the investigation and detail the reasons why the plaintiffs’ conduct was subject to scrutiny,” the prosecutors claimed.

Is Walker Guilty of Coordinated Spending in Violation of Campaign Law? Here’s a legal look at the possible violation:

jsonline: Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine who authors a popular blog on election law, said Thursday that the Citizens United case didn't go quite as far as many people think it did. The ruling left intact certain limits on coordinating such spending with candidates or their campaigns, restrictions similar to the Wisconsin laws.

"We're talking Wisconsin law" in the John Doe case, Hasen said, "but it’s fairly analogous. All kinds of issue advocacy can count as coordination, and therefore be illegal," depending on the specifics. Both Hasen and another election law expert, Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji, think Randa's interpretations of the law will not be shared by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I was flabbergasted by some of the things he said that were like applauding coordination," Hasen said. Tokaji said coordination is illegal for good reason, because it "raises the specter of corruption," and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the purpose of preventing the exchange of cash for political favors. He said the new documents don't suggest the prosecutors looking into the Walker campaign were biased.

Ilya Shapiro, from the Cato Institute, called Thursday's developments "sort of a non-story" and a "fishing expedition" that doesn't change anything. Shapiro predicts the 7th Circuit will affirm Randa's findings but "with less sweeping rhetoric" on narrower grounds.

Americans won't be happy if Hobby Lobby wins.

While D.C. Republican politicians insist on doing just the opposite of what the American public want, polling keeps telling them to wake up. Let's just say that if the conservative activist Supreme Court decides Hobby Lobby has the First Amendment right of religious freedom, there's going to be big trouble in this country. I've highlighted a new polls responses supporting employer provided birth control:

Most Americans support the Obamacare provision requiring employers to provide birth control coverage for their workers at no additional cost, according to new polling conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), and don’t believe that corporations should be able to claim religious liberty exemptions to get out of this policy.

6 in 10 Americans believe that both publicly held and privately owned corporations should be required to follow Obamacare’s birth control provision ... even in the cases of religiously affiliated institutions, like colleges and hospitals. Churches shouldn’t have to offer copay-free birth control.

The Journal of the American Medical Association found even stronger majority ... 7 in 10 respondents said that companies should cover the full cost of contraception in their insurance plans.

Another poll found that two thirds of female voters hope that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood lose their Supreme Court case. PRRI has consistently found that most religious Americans are supportive of expanding birth control coverage, too.

How many Americans would be affected?

About 14,000 workers are employed at the two companies that are currently seeking to eliminate coverage for birth control prescriptions and counseling … more than 70 other companies also sued over this Obamacare provision, and likely wouldn’t hesitate to remove contraceptive coverage if the ruling goes their way.

Research has also shown that ensuring women have access to the pill helps them invest in their careers and remain in the workforce. 

John Doe 2 Slayer Judge Randa's Ridiculously Extreme Conservatism. He's really a judge.

Who’s Judge Randa? Without a doubt he's pure right wing politics in a robe. And while the press ignores the shocking fact that his assistant is the wife of Scott Walker's campaign lawyer Steve Biskupic, Randa is allowed to act out his twisted ideological interpretation of the law with no mounting criticism from his peers.

You won't believe this guy. From jsonline:

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa — an adviser to the Milwaukee chapter of the conservative Federalist Society — has moved to center stage with his ruling last week to halt the John Doe investigation into Walker's campaign and its conservative allies.

Randa, 73, is the natty dresser with the white mane and authoritarian manner. 

Randa told a reporter for The Milwaukee Journal that he believed his job was not to use the law "to implement my ideas of what society should be." Even so, he did not try to hide his political leanings on one key issue: abortion. Asked for his views, Randa remarked that he was a Catholic "and as a member of the Catholic Church, if you abide by the rules of the Catholic Church, abortion is wrong."

On occasion, Randa has brought up issues with defendants that have little to do directly with their cases. For instance, in 2007, Randa referred repeatedly to a drug dealer's Mexican heritage, saying "you people" and "those people," during sentencing. The judge also discounted the defendant's claim of being a good family man, saying "even Adolf Hitler was admired by his family. Adolf Hitler loved his dog. Yet he killed 6 million Jews." The Chicago-based appeals court returned the case to another judge and ordered a new sentence. Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood wrote that Randa's comments were "utterly out of bounds."

Also in 2007, Randa ordered convicted state purchasing official Georgia Thompson to be jailed while she appealed her conviction for steering a travel contract to a company to supporters of then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. The appeals court tossed Thompson's conviction, calling the evidence "beyond thin," and ordered her to be freed immediately.

This year, Randa was overturned for forcing a prisoner to wear prison garb in front of the jury during his civil rights case against Langlade County jail guards. Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner wrote that forcing someone to wear prisoner clothing in front of a jury is "highly prejudicial."

In June 2007, Randa announced he would move into senior status, a form of semiretirement for federal judges without a cut in pay or benefits. But he said he would do this only if then-President George W. Bush, a Republican, was able to appoint his successor. That didn't happen. Shortly after Democratic President Barack Obama was elected, Randa rescinded his application to go to senior status and has remained on full district court status.

There's more. From WPT's Here and Now, get a load of what former State Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske said about Randa's decision about destroying evidence:

Supreme Court pours more Campaign Cash into elections, contradict yesterdays voters who declared "Money is not free speech."

Americans seem bewildered by the conservative activist Supreme Court’s decision on Citizen’s United. Few people believe the founding fathers tried to give corporations the same rights as people. 

Just as outrageous is the idea that corporations would then have free speech rights in the form of money.

Constitutional Amendment: Wisconsinites overwhelmingly approved county wide referendums supporting an amendment to the constitution... 

“declaring that only human beings, not corporations, unions, nonprofits or similar associations are endowed with constitutional rights.”

And that…

“Money is not free speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

Edgerton, Waunakee, DeForest, Belleville and Windsor all supported the above constitutional amendment.

                                                                                                                                                                                            

But if today is any indication, the Robert’s court and the conservative majority have a different view of the founding fathers intentions, and the dystopian future they’re helping to create. The latest case focused on contributions, rather than spending.

Voting 5-4 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total money donors can give to federal candidates and parties, issuing its biggest campaign-finance ruling since the 2010 Citizens United decision … the caps violated the speech rights of Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official seeking to give candidates, parties and political committees more than the $123,200 maximum.

The court stopped short of undercutting a 1976 ruling that allows caps on contributions to individual candidates.  Justice Thomas (said) in a separate opinion that he would have gone further and overturned the 1976 ruling.

 The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s lead opinion … it will give more freedom to wealthy donors looking to use their money to make a political impact. Taken together with Citizens United, the decision “eviscerates our nation’s campaign-finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent. 

Finally, Reid nuked Filibuster on Judicial Nominations

Finally:

“It’s time to change,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor as almost all members sat at their desks in the chamber.  “It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.”

I watched Sen. Mitch McConnell's jaw dropping objections to the nuclear option on judicial nominations, a tactic used by Republicans to pass two extremely partisan judges. McConnell actually called the Democratic move:

"...a fake fight over judges who aren't even needed" and said  Reid is trying to "break the rules to change the rules."

Judges on the influential, conservative leaning D.C. Circuit aren't needed? Vacant seats don't need to be filled? Just amazing. Oh, but if you're not convince yet, maybe this childish excuse will do:

McConnell argued that Republicans are merely using tactics pioneered by Democrats when the president's party was in the minority. 

Will Republicans appoint more openly activist conservative judges? You mean they've already done that?

...they will retaliate when they win back a majority in the Senate. "Some of us have been around here long enough to know that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot," McConnell said, telling Democrats "you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." 

 I also had to laugh at this CNN headline:

Controversial rules change may add to partisan divide

Oh no, not that.

Scott Walker is now reaching out to the “teabilly Talibans” and Conservative Activist Judges!

This'll get your attention, from Think Progress:

Walker Hints He’d Appoint Author Of Anti-Birth Control Opinion To Supreme Court If Elected President: Speaking late Friday morning at a conference hosted by the

conservative Federalist Society, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) strongly suggested that, if he’s elected president, he will appoint the author of a recent opinion restricting women’s access to birth control to the Supreme Court of the United States … lavishing praise on Judge Diane Sykes … a conservative member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, (who) authored an opinion last week that SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Denniston described as “the broadest ruling so far by a federal appeals court barring enforcement of the birth-control mandate in the new federal health care law.”

Sykes isn't the only one. Judges across the country are saying a company has a right to deny access to the pill, unless it’s used for some other reason. Just tell the boss why. Uncomfortable? Yes. Do companies have such rights? We'll see.

But wouldn't telling your employer be a privacy violation under HIPAA? What other medical decision can employers eventually restrict once a contraception ban is successful?

First and foremost: It shreds federal and state laws protecting religious rights, putting the religious beliefs of your employer/company over other Americans.

Or how about non-contraceptive use: 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes. Reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%).

Oddly, the idea that government granted entities like corporations have religious rights is catching on, bringing out those conservative activist judges hell bent on manipulating our laws:

Three federal appeals courts have held that religious employers may deny birth control coverage to their employees, while two others have ruled to the contrary. The judges in these cases have voted largely, although not entirely, along party lines.

The Sykes court wrote: “We hold that the plaintiffs—the business owners and their companies—may challenge the mandate. We further hold that compelling them to cover these services substantially burdens their religious-exercise rights. Two legal questions are contested: (1) is a secular, for-profit corporation a “person” under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act); and(2) does the contraception mandate substantially burden the religious-exercise rights of any of the plaintiffs, individual or corporate? If the answer to these questions is “yes,” the government must discharge its burden of justifying the mandate under strict scrutiny. We conclude as follows: The corporate plaintiffs are “persons” under RFRA and may invoke the statute’s protections; the contraception mandate substantially burdens the religious-exercise rights of all of the plaintiffs; and the government has not carried its burden under strict scrutiny.

I would argue that the mandate does not “substantially” injure anyone, since they’re not forced to obtain contraception.

1. For-Profit Corporations as RFRA “Persons” RFRA’s general rule prohibits the federal government from placing substantial burdens on “a person’s exercise of religion” RFRA does not define “person.” This brings the Dictionary Act into play. The definition there expressly includes corporations. “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise[,] … the word[] ‘person’ … include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals … .” 1 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added).

It's odd constitutional purist would resort to the "Dictionary Act" for their argument, since definitions change all the time:

The editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary noted, “I think that it’s probably wrong, in almost all situations, to use a dictionary in the courtroom,” adding, “Dictionary definitions are written with a lot of things in mind, but rigorously circumscribing the exact meanings and connotations of terms is not usually one of them.”

Dictionaries nevertheless rank relatively low on my list because (1) they are just as susceptible to abuse as traditional sources of legislative history; (2) they are not written by or for a legal audience; and (3) the meaning of words change over time, meaning definitions plucked from a different time period than the one in which the relevant statute was drafted do not accurately reflect the intended meaning of that term.

The Sykes Opinion: 

"On this understanding of substantial burden, there can be little doubt that the contraception mandate imposes a s burden on the plaintiffs’ religious exercise. K & L Contractors and Grote Industries must pay $100 per day per employee if they do not include coverage for contraception and sterilization in their employee health-care plans.

But that’s a burden they put on themselves.

The government takes a different tack on this question, arguing that the mandate’s burden on religious exercise is insubstantial because an employee’s decision to use her insurance coverage to purchase contraception or sterilization services “cannot be attributed to” the Kortes or Grotes. In a different twist on the same argument, the government also insists that any burden on the plaintiffs’ religious exercise is too “attenuated” to count as “substantial” because the provision of contraception coverage is several steps removed from an employee’s independent decision to use contraception. For support the government relies on Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), and Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000). Neither case is relevant here.

The Conservative Activist Wisconsin Supreme Court Ramming Walker Agenda Down our Throats.

It’s always pissed me off. Heaven forbid we have a liberal activist judge or justice on the court. But if a GOP candidate promises the appointment of a conservative judge to the court, like minded voters see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Even the Republicans candidates for president promised conservative judges during the debate, with no blow back by the press.

Our very own conservative activist supreme court isn’t shy to make their belief system a focal point of their decisions. Like this amazing example that passed late on a night Friday to avoid media notice:

jsonline: Monday's arguments came just days after the high court exhibited its first divisions on the case.Just after 10:30 p.m. Friday — an unusual hour for court orders — the justices ruled 4-3 that some unions could not participate in Monday's oral arguments. The dissenters had harsh words for not allowing the unions that won the contempt order to present their case to the high court, saying that decision "undermines this court's role as a neutral, fair, impartial and nonpartisan arbiter."

In the majority were Gableman, Ziegler and Justices David Prosser and Patience Roggensack. In dissent were Abrahamson, Bradley and Justice N. Patrick Crooks. Those are the very lines along which the court split in the last Act 10 case. Tensions were so high then that Prosser and Bradley got into a physical altercation over the case.

Isn't this really a big story?

Conservative Judicial Activism Justified to increase Power? Apparently.

While same sex marriage is getting the well-deserved attention it should, we can't lose sight of the Supreme Courts repeal of the Voting Rights Act, which will have a profound effect on who controls every aspect of our lives through government power.

Isn't it obvious already, in states where Republicans have complete control, that the size and scope of government is expanding, all the while reducing citizen rights and freedoms for the corporate class. We are here to serve the interests of business, who seem to "promise"  economic health and freedom for everyone, but never deliver.

Republicans are cafeteria constitutionalists. Their "constitutional" argument is a sad irreversible part of their scheme to con the public and redefine our founding document to mean what they say it means, at any given time.

I've selected a few great lines from an E.J. Dionne story today that I thought focused on the Republican Party's quest for ultimate power with the help of judicial activism.

Recall that when conservatives did not have a clear court majority, they railed against “judicial activism.” Now that they have the capacity to impose their will, many of the same conservatives defend extreme acts of judicial activism by claiming they involve legitimate interpretations of the true meaning of the Constitution.

It is an inconsistency that tells us all we need to know. This is not an argument about what the Constitution says. It is a battle for power. And, despite scattered liberal triumphs, it is a battle that conservatives are winning.

Walker to Discipline Dane County Voters for Voting out his Judge Appointment.

Scott Walker inadvertently trashed voters for picking a judge they liked more than his appointee.

You know Scott, that's why we have elections.

WSJ: Walker told reporters it was "unfortunate" that Dane County Circuit Judge Rebecca St. John lost Tuesday's election (to) attorney Rhonda Lanford, who used the Walker connection to attack St. John during the campaign. Walker said, "Unfortunately I think that politics has trumped that."

The Republican governor said he may just allow judicial positions in heavily Democratic Dane County to remain vacant until there's an election. "In the future it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to try and go through that appointment process and make someone who's a good judge — or a good lawyer — be in a position like that," Walker said. "It just doesn't make any sense to drag people through that."

Under state law, judicial appointees must run to retain their seats in the following spring election.

Could someone tell Walker how elections work. Conversely, you could say Justice Roggensack won because of her support of Walker, but that's okay. Channel 3000:



Revenge by this petty dictator is also being doled out in predominantly Democratic Milwaukee as well, as explained by Police Chief Ed Flynn:

WISN: Gov. Scott Walker has proposed lifting the residency rules statewide in his budget. Chief Ed Flynn said the measure has nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with the last election.

"This has nothing to do with state budget. It is not a budgetary issue. It's a local governance issue. There is no compelling state interest at stake. It's foolish to impose this on," Flynn said. "There are other ways to pay back the mayor for having the temerity to run for governor. You don't have to attack the viability of your central city."

Justice Prosser a Danger to fellow Justice Bradley, who needed security and locked her door at night.

Just how bad do we need to throw out the conservative bullies on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Well, if you have to lock your door after hours to protect yourself from an aging partisan misogynist,  we're long long over due.

I wonder what the conservative radio jackals will say about this lurking and sinister Justice? They won’t, or they'll blame "liberals," whatever that means.

jsonline: State Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley received stepped-up security from law enforcement more than two months before Justice David Prosser put his hands around her neck in a dispute over a controversial case, according to a court document issued Wednesday.

That disclosure came in a decision Bradley released recusing herself from the ethics case against Prosser over the June 2011 altercation. Bradley wrote in the filing that she and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to this day lock themselves in their offices when working after hours because of concerns about Prosser's behavior. "If nothing is done, I wonder what will happen next in this escalating pattern of abusive behavior," Bradley wrote.

One Party Wisconsin? Sen. Fitzgerald’s Crony Government.

Over confidence via gerrymandering has made State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald a very honest man.

Should our government and judicial positions be filled with conservative ideologues only? Fitzgerald no long feels the need to soft sell his position:

Ass wipe or not? 

jsonline-Patrick Marley: The state Senate's incoming leader said Monday he would like to take retired judges off the state's nonpartisan elections and ethics board and replace them with political appointees.

Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), said he believed the state Government Accountability Board has made decisions favoring Democrats and that putting political appointees on the board would "strike more of a balance." "GAB, it's not working the way it's supposed to," Fitzgerald said.

That paranoid absurdity is now what controls and preoccupies the Republican agenda these days. Balance would seem to suggest...balance. They want to make state government "liberal" proof. With an essential lock on legislative districts for 10 years Democrats will find repealing, replacing and cleaning up, after these dogs have "marked their territory," will be an almost impossible task. Fitzgerald, Vos and Walker can't stop "lifting a leg."  

How times have changed under the Walker Authority:

Lawmakers in 2007 overwhelmingly voted to create the accountability board … The board consists of six retired judges. Every Republican in the Legislature at the time voted for the measure, and having the board consist of former judges was a GOP idea.

I really like this outright admission that authoritarian one party control is their only winnable option:

But Fitzgerald said it had not worked out as expected. "I just don't think there's an independent voice at all," he said. "The judges say we don't have enough (information) to overturn the staff recommendations, so they just say 'aye,' " Fitzgerald said.

Like Republicans are concerned at all with details? Can you say ALEC? You saw how they handled WEDC. These are lazy freeloading politicians, and taking the easy way out-one party control, is optimal.

Fitzgerald said GOP lawmakers were particularly frustrated with how the board handled the recall elections of Gov. Scott Walker and state senators in 2011 and 2012.

Accountability to the voters is such a drag.

Unconstitutional Judicial Attacks still on Conservative Agenda

Did the founding fathers get anything right? Today's conservative have finally divined corporations should have been people, it's a Christian constitution, no gun laws, government is small, all rights are enumerated, voting requires a photo...etc.

And now the group Family Leader is advocating purging judges that rule against ideologically driven law.

Isn't it odd how our Republican pocket constitutionalists want to put an end to the founders well laid out three branches of government. Then again, I'm not able to channel them like our conservative anti-government freedom fighters. Oops, the founding fathers also set up the government.

From Religion and Ethics Weekly, the best look at the right wings next stake through the heart of democracy;