Walker, Fitzgerald "victims," order judicial branch activism and change to law they violated. Tough break voters.

A Special Note: My conservative Trumpian friend in Milwaukee called and trashed Walker and Fitzgerald. There's a possibility that this isn't going as well as the scheming Republicans think it is.

When Scott Walker and the Republican lawbreakers ignore laws and get caught, they change the law. It's their "privilege. And that's what's happening with the special election law:

Gov. Scott Walker and Republican lawmakers are moving quickly to change when special elections must be held in the wake of a court order requiring special elections for two vacant legislative seats.

Dane County Circuit Judge Josann Reynolds — who was appointed to the bench by Walker in 2014 and elected to a six-year term the following year — blistered the governor Thursday for refusing to call the special elections and ordered him to do so within a week.

Walker bashed the actual group representing Wisconsin voters in court because that group, headed up by former AG Eric Holder, was from D.C. Yes, it's an oddly insulting argument to make when you've got no real point to make. Crash and burn time just before the election?

Walker — even before the formal legislation had been made public — said that he would sign the bill. “A D.C.-based political group wants to force Wisconsin taxpayers to waste money on special elections at a time when our Legislature is ready to adjourn for the year,” Walker said.

And the irony?

If that wasn't bad enough, Fitzgerald made it clear who the judicial branch is supposed to serve under a Republican authority:

Fitzgerald criticized the tone of Reynolds’ ruling in which she questioned why Walker didn’t call for special elections to fill the vacancies as required by law. On Thursday, Vos criticized Reynolds as an “activist Dane County judge,” which prompted Fifth Judicial District Chief Judge William Hanrahan to demand an apology.

Yet judicial criticism is not tolerated by our all-knowing overseers, who continue to play the role of victim despite being in complete control of the legislature for the last 7 years. 

In one of the most bizarre statements yet, offering a revealing look at just how power corrupts, Fitzgerald wants the Chief Justice to punish the lower court judges. You read that right:

Fitzgerald said Reynolds’ and Hanrahan’s public statements were “way out of line” and reflected a larger problem with Dane County judges being hostile to conservatives and Republicans.

He called the Fifth Judicial District a “laughing stock” in the state and said he would talk with Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Pat Roggensack about the situation.

“All of those comments about the governor were just way out of bounds,” Fitzgerald said. “I would hope that Justice Roggensack would police that.”

I can't wait to see what Roggensack does with this hot potato. Standing up for voters in Dane County and elsewhere, Hanrahan's public statement didn't hold back...

Hanrahan: “You took the low road. With a broad brush, you have not only needlessly besmirched my reputation and that of my colleagues, you have also gratuitously denigrated the good citizens of Dane County. And frankly, in the process, you have also sullied your own reputation, diminishing any hopes of being taken seriously as a statesman.”

But even more interesting; Hanrahan appears to be an old-fashioned apolitical judge like they're supposed to be. Well, how about that...

Hanrahan, a former state assistant attorney general who heads the state’s Fifth Judicial District wrote, that he is neither liberal nor conservative, but a “non-partisan member of the Third Branch of state government.”

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.

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."

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:

McConnell exposes GOP push for Judicial Activism!

Sen. Mitch McConnell's bold move to admit Republicans have been lying all along about their opposition to judicial activism is stunning but refreshingly honest. We're now finding out that the nonpartisan "originalist" reading of the Constitution...is just the opposite.   

McConnell declared there will be no hearings on President Obama’s yet-to-be-announced nominee. Pretty similar to the decision to oppose any and all of Obama's agenda when he was first sworn in. But this move peals back the lie about hating activist judges legislating from the bench.   

CAP Action put together a long list of McConnell contradiction. Here are just a few:  

In his 31 years as a senator, Mitch McConnell has argued that the Senate must fulfill its Constitutional duty and vote on a president’s judicial nominee at least 24 times. All of these claims are in direct contrast to McConnell’s refusal to hold hearings for to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“My Republican colleagues and I honored Senate tradition. We followed the constitutional directive set forth in Article II, Section 2, that the Senate as an institution as reflected by the will of the majority of its Members, render its advice and consent on the President’s nominees. We put propriety over partisanship.” [3/9/2005]

“For the first time in history, a minority of Senators, on a repeated, partisan, and systematic basis, has prevented the Senate as a whole from discharging its constitutional obligation to provide advice and
consent on judicial nominations.” [3/9/2005]

“We need to recommit ourselves to the 200 year principle that in a democracy an up-or-down vote should be given to a President’s judicial nominees. It is simple. It is fair. It has been that way for over 2 centuries. And it’s served us well.” [4/14/2005]

“The stakes are high. The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article 2, section 2 clearly provides the President and the President alone nominates judges. The Senate is merely empowered to give advice and consent, but our Democratic colleagues want to change the rules…. there would be the distinct possibility and in fact great likelihood, if this continues, that 41 Members of the Senate will dictate to the President of the United States who may be a member of the Supreme Court and other courts. We have made every effort to reach out and compromise, but our colleagues at least so far have refused. The only choice that remains is to hold a vote to reaffirm the traditions and precedents that have served this body so well for the last 214 years. Let us vote.” [5/19/2005]

For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s “advise and consent’’ responsibilities to “advise and obstruct.” [5/19/2005]

By tradition, the President may consult with Senators. But the tradition of “consultation’’ does not transform individual Senators into co-presidents. We have elections for that, and President Bush has won the last two.” [6/9/2005]

“So even, you know, as you have a lame­-duck president, there is a historical standard for fairness when it comes to confirming judicial nominees.” [7/14/2008]

No. 1, we should treat Judge Roberts with dignity and with respect. No. 2, we should have a fair process. And No. 3, we should complete that process with either an up-or-down vote in time for the Court to be at full strength for its new term beginning October 3 of this year.” [7/20/2005]

State Supreme Court dismantles Constitutional Right to Privacy, allows illegal search without warrant.

It appears “freedom and liberty” is just another slogan used by conservatives to get people to buy their loyalty and vote. What follows is breathtakingly outrageous, and supported by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. When it comes to child porn and sex, conservatives have their principles. 

I had to dig this page 5 story up, printed in the Wisconsin State Journal and not featured online, at Green Bay’s Fox 11 site. Talk about buried.

“Conservative activist” would be a mild way to describe this court, after overturning an appeals court decision that said the search of a man’s computer was illegal without a warrant.

Dismantling the Constitution by a Thousand Cuts: The court loosened up the requirement to get a warrant, by simply allowing a person’s suspicions to be enough to conduct a search. Case closed.

Here’s the jaw dropping short summary:

AP: The search of a man’s computer without a warrant that turned up child pornography was not a violation of his constitutional protection against illegal searches and seizures, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday. The court reinstated four convictions ... against Jeremiah Purtell, overturning a state appeals court that had determined the search was illegal. Purtell was on probation … complained to his probation officer about not being allowed to have computers, and admitted to her that he maintained a Myspace account. The probation officer looked at his account and saw images of a half-woman, half-cow that concerned her. She seized his computer in 2007 and found images of bestiality. She then turned the computer over to investigators who obtained a warrant to do a more thorough search, which turned up large volumes of child pornography. Purtell was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Very Conservative Justice: Despite Purtell’s appeals court win, the conservative activists hate child porn as much as Purtell's Constitutionally protected right of privacy:

But the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, disagreed. A probation agent’s search of a computer is allowed if the agent has “reasonable grounds” to believe there may be contraband, which she did in this case, Justice Michael Gableman wrote for the majority.

Purtell’s attorney, assistant state public defender Eileen Hirsch, said the decision raises questions about whether such searches will be more broadly permissible. “It creates more ambiguity in the law,” Hirsch said.

Ya think? The Outrageous Liberal Justices Opinion: The porn loving liberal justices would let this disgusting guy walk:

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented, saying the search of his computer without a warrant violated his privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Our "Impartial Partisan" AG: Supposedly always there to defend the constitution, J.B. Van Hollen instead went with his “principles” on this one:

State Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ was pleased with the decision, which “reinforced principles of law that will allow state probation and parole agents to effectively supervise offenders in the community.”

So what about the rule of law, our Constitution...reminds me of Capt. Barbossa's response in Pirates of the Caribbean. The Constitution is just like the Pirates Code...

Fair Trial? Not when it supposedly involves Sex: It’s the return of kangaroo court justice:

The court in a 4-3 decision reinstated a conviction against James R. Hunt for causing his adopted 12-year-old daughter to view on his cellphone a video of a couple having sex. The court determined that Hunt, 43, received a fair trial, even though testimony from a friend backing up his defense was wrongly excluded. The Supreme Court reversed an appeals court ruling, which overturned his conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Even violent conservative Justice Prosser didn't agree with this one.

Three justices – Abrahamson, Bradley and David Prosser – dissented, saying exclusion of the testimony was not harmless because it bolstered Hunt’s defense that the girl had seen a different image of a testicular hernia sent to him by his friend and embellished her story.

Authoritarians Stick Together: Van Hollen okay with excluding testimony:

The DOJ was pleased with the ruling.

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!

Conservative Activist Supreme Court on Voter ID: "Judicial Rewriting of the Law" over provision to waive fees for photo ID.

Republicans  have created this presumption that conservative judges and justices are in no way activist, legislating from the bench. When that's clearly not been the case. The media and Democrats, at their own peril, have decided to ignore the problem. We're already beyond the tipping point, with decisions on the Second Amendment, corporate personhood and religious rights, and that money is speech.

From WPR's morning show, with guest hosted by John Munson, Ed Fallone and right wing blabbermouth Steve Prestigard took a look at the most extreme example of judicial activism and legislating from the bench by Justice Patience Roggensack. Roggensack carved out "legislation" that makes the Voter ID law constitutional, by rewriting the administrative code of the state used by our DMV's (the DMV was not even a party to the lawsuit). Pictured is Ed Fallone and John Prestigard



Rep. Robin Vos found a way to fear monger the base over Roggensack's judicial activism:

AP: Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos says the state Supreme Court's ruling that the state can't require someone to present documents that cost money, like a birth certificate copy, when applying for a state ID. … could potentially lead to fraud. Vos says that has the potential for fraud because it's unclear what the process will be to ensure a person is a legal citizen and who they claim to be.

So Vos is saying that without the possibility for some form of payment, just to vote, other documentation to prove who you are may lead to fraud? Stunning!

PostCrescent: Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen says he is looking at all options to get that federal court ruling put on hold, so the photo ID requirement can be in place for the November election.

Voter Suppression Caught Again: Van Hollen is not just making up for the fact Republicans tried like hell to hide free voter ID's at the DMV, he's also suggesting this was a mere legislative mistake. Not surprisingly, the problem was never corrected. Past stories are here and here:

"Do you know someone who votes that does not have a State ID that meets requirements to vote? Tell them they can go to the DMV/DOT and get a free ID card. However they must ask for the free ID" ... a memo was sent out by the 3rd in command of the DMV/DOT. The memo specifically told the employees at the DMV/DOT not to inform individuals that the ID’s are free. "So if the individuals seeking to get the free ID does not ask for a free ID, they will have to pay for it!! "

From WISC Channel3000. The story references a public education campaign, that I personally don't remember seeing. Anyone else?



Check out John Nichols column, "Judge Who Framed Voter ID Laws As Constitutional Says He Got It Wrong." This case is always brought up to defend Wisconsin's law. Oops.

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:

Republicans Destroy Public Confidence of our Judicial Branch of government.

Republicans talk big about protecting the integrity of everything from voting to judges. As always, it's opposite day everyday in Republican world.
While the nation collapses under the partisan decisions by the decidedly conservative activist Supreme Court, the public has noticed. I'm relieved I wasn't the only one.

Buzzfeed: Only about a third of Americans believe the Supreme Court decides cases based on the law alone ... Americans believe the Supreme Court justices are political, letting their personal views sway their decisions … more than three-quarters of Americans oppose the Citizens United ruling … Americans say they would also like to see more ... access to courtroom proceedings to financial disclosures and ethics rules — as well as an end to lifetime terms.

The Numbers:

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps: Majorities of Republican, Democratic, and Independent respondents all told the pollsters that “the current U.S. Supreme Court justices often let their own personal or political views influence their decisions” — 54% of Democrats, 62% of Republicans, and 63% of Independents, for a total result of 60% of respondents agreeing with the statement. Only 36% of respondents agree that “the current U.S. Supreme Court justices usually decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal or political views.” Specifically regarding the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision from 2010, 80% of Americans opposed the decision and 18% supported it. Although Republicans (72%) were less opposed to the decision than Democrats (82%), it was Independents (84%) most opposed to the decision. 

Voter ID Unconstitutional in Pennsylvania. GOP lawmaker says decision "doesn't give you a reason to (disregard) the voice of the people."

Remember this comment contained below from constitutional conservative Pennsylvania State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe:

The fact that the law may impose a burden on voters who need an ID "doesn't give you a reason to (disregard) the voice of the people" as expressed by the Legislature, he said.

Metcalfe is saying that no matter how unconstitutional something is, if elected politicians supposedly reflect the “voice of the people,” who cares.

Republican authoritarian rule. Despite the “strict” conservative adherence to the constitution, some things can still be a fair and reasonable exception.  

AP: A Pennsylvania judge on Friday struck down a requirement that nearly all of the state's 8.2 million voters show photo identification at the polls, saying it imposes an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and that officials failed to demonstrate the need for it. "Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal….overwhelming evidence" that hundreds of thousands of qualified voters lack IDs that comply with the law and panned the state's educational and marketing efforts as "largely ineffective and consistently confusing."

And so we return to Metcalfe’s lunatic ranting’s of judicial activism, especially when rulings don’t go the GOP’s way (a dangerous precedent repeated over and over by conservatives):

Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe, a Butler County Republican who sponsored the original, more stringent bill, called the decision "an activist ruling by a partisan Democrat judge." The fact that the law may impose a burden on voters who need an ID "doesn't give you a reason to (disregard) the voice of the people" as expressed by the Legislature, he said.

Yes, if the people (how many, and what party) want it, what does the constitution matter. 

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.

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.

Activist Conservative Supreme Court Takes Wrecking Ball to Voting Rights Act. Big Surprise.

Come on, let’s admit it; there’s a reason all of these conservative wedge issues are making it to the Supreme Court, it’s packed with activist conservative justices. The media refuses to bring this topic up, even while this activist rogue court keeps racking up the victories. It’s so weird to hear those embarrassing brain dead Republican politicians and low information voters say, “I told you so.”

Huffington Post

And these conservative activist Justices struck again, just like they did in Citizens United and the Heller Second Amendment gun rights case, by overruling Congresses decision to guarantee the right to vote and uphold the Fifteenth Amendment. Of course limiting who votes is an odd defense of our “republic,” where we are dependent on that vote to pick our “representatives.” How often do Republicans remind us we are not a democracy?

Here's Eric Holders comment today, offering why this decision is jaw dropping:

The ruling is your typical “state’s rights” decision, saying pre-approval of election changes in area’s known for past discrimination, is congressional overreach, and needs to be updated to reflect current conditions. It sounds like the judicial branch of government is telling the legislative branch what to do.

Either the Justices are completely ignorant of the current political climate, or they’re keenly aware of it and intend to game the system, knowing congress has been taken over by rabid tea partyers who hate government and will agree to nothing. Either way, voter protections are gone.

John Nichols wrote this:

What the United States Supreme Court has done, with its decision to strike down essential elements of the Voting Rights Act, is wrong … the court's conservative majority has taken advantage of a gap in the Constitution that must be addressed.

Nichols is talking about the fact that the constitution does not guarantee our right to vote:

The court's 5-4 ruling lifted the requirement that changes to voting laws, procedures and polling place locations in all or part of 15 targeted states be approved in advance by the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges. The ruling says that Congress went too far in seeking to prevent racial discrimination in voting, when it reauthorized of the historic act in 2006, with votes of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House.

Check out Ginsburg’s opinion:

Business Week: It fell to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a scathing dissent, to note that: “After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. In my judgment, the court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’s decision.”

Congress can and should come back at the issue. But that won't be easy … the Voting Rights Act earned the scorn of Republicans who object to its use in legal efforts to strike down restrictive "Voter ID" laws.

Can the act be updated, like the court advises? Are you kidding:

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the judiciary panel, said in an interview that he’s doubtful a legislative response is needed. He said the court’s ruling reflects that the nation has changed. “It proves that after 45 years that the Voting Rights Act is working,” Grassley said of the court’s ruling. “The situation in those states that were covered by the act, they don’t have discriminatory voting anymore, so the act is not necessary."

Nichols like so many liberals thinks we can change things for the better. Get rid of the rose colored glasses guys, we're getting killed out here:

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that … unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution. If approved by the Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would add to the founding document this declaration:

SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Uh, guys, I didn't see the phrase “shall not be infringed” tacked onto section 1. Let’s see if Republicans like the unlimited right to vote as much as the unlimited right to bear arms.

Latest Fabrication: Obama Court Packing Power Play.

Republican filibusters have kept George W. Bush’s courts unchanged and very conservative. The fact that Republicans believes U.S. "law" leans very conservative allows them the cover of supporting judges who mistakenly make outrageously conservative declarations and judgement.  

Their attack on Obama for his insistence Republicans approve or deny nominee’s, is getting downright destructive to the judicial branch of government. Here are a few jaw dropping details reported by Media Matters:

Filibuster Reform Has Right-Wing Media Frantically Condemning Judicial "Power Play": By shamelessly repeating Sen. Chuck Grassley's debunked analogy that the 

president's current nominations to the important U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit are a "type of court-packing reminiscent of FDR's era," right-wing media appear to be running out of excuses for rampant Republican obstructionism.

This "radical and different" treatment of the president's nominees as opposed to that of past Republican presidents has led to the real possibility that Senate rules will be changed in July.

Grassley and now Rep. Tom Cotton have introduced bills that would block the president's nominations by eliminating the vacant seats -- literally court-packing in reverse. 

The Wall Street Journal similarly warned that the president wanted judges who "rubber stamp liberal laws," leading him to his "flood-the-zone strategy" for the D.C. Circuit, "a liberal power play that shows contempt for traditional political checks and balances."

Breitbart.com is breathlessly proclaiming the nominations show "Obama has declared war on judicial independence" and is "trying to declare law by executive fiat."

As American Enterprise Institute scholar and congressional expert Norm Ornstein reported, Grassley's court-packing rhetoric made him "laugh out loud" at the absurdity of the comparison: “I remain deeply uneasy about a nuclear option … But if senators who know better … continue to obstruct nominations, they and their colleagues will be the ones responsible for the damage done.”

How can you describe any of the following Republican picks as “impartial,” when they've made comments that show a “complete contempt for traditional political checks and balances?”

The last three Republican presidents actually have been quite successful at "flood-the-zone" strategies. The ensuing right-wing tilt of the federal judiciary, especially at the upper levels, has been dramatic.

Take the Reagan-pick Judge David Sentelle, currently on the heavily conservative D.C. Circuit the president is trying to balance, whose latest shocking decision overthrew decades if not centuries of precedent in order to disallow the president further recess appointments. Or his possibly more extreme colleague, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who has criticized New Deal programs as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution" and formally advocated for a rejection of the results of the "democratic process" that led to such progressive legislation, a blend of "political and judicial roles" that even conservative legal experts have balked at. 

Just this week it was reported that at an unrecorded Federalist Society speech, Judge Edith H. Jones of the Fifth Circuit - another Reagan nominee - allegedly claimed "blacks and Hispanics were more prone than others to commit violent crimes and that a death sentence was a service to defendants because it allowed them to make peace with God." Jones has been repeatedly pushed by right-wing media as suitable for the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia redefining Judicial Activism/Legislating from the Bench on Voting Rights Act!!

Regardless of how the Supreme Court decides the Voting Rights Act, the comments made by the conservative majority is so repugnant, so ideologically driven, that despite the Affordable Care Act squeaker, this court has hit new heights of activist legislating from the bench.

This is Republicans call "legislating from the bench," the one thing conservatives dread most. Justice Scalia wants to overturn the legislative branches 25 year extension of the act in 2006, that passed the senate 98-0, and the house 390-33. Why? Because he thinks it's not the kind of question you can leave congress, and that's it's some kind of "racial entitlement." The terminology of right wingers.

This is jaw dropping stuff, or should be, even to conservatives who believe in the constitutional framework that makes the three branches of government independent and equal. Rachel Maddow explains in detail the history and implications:



Here's Ed Schultz with libertarian legal pundit Jonathan Turley, who is almost breathless at the reasoning and direction the court is taking.

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;

Republicans Reinterpret Constitution to fit Authoritarian Ideology into the Judicial Branch.

Say goodbye to the independent judicial branch of our government. If the Republicans take the presidency and control of the senate, the judicial branch will change.

We could easily make this a not-so-phony Democratic outrage moment, but won't. It's like everything else allowed to happen under the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party.

Think Progress took the time to look at the Republican Party’s draft platform, and found out that the independent judicial branch will no longer be tolerated. The platform language is crystal clear about encouraging a much more conservative activist court system. Remember this; there is no consensus on "constitutional limits," so the conservative assumptions are only that, and a continuation of a debate that's been going on since before the Constitution was written:

Platform: "Despite improvements as a result of Republican nominations to the judiciary, some judges in the federal courts remain far afield from their constitutional limitations. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Judicial activism which includes reliance on foreign law or unratified treaties undermines American law. The sole solution, apart from impeachment, is the appointment of constitutionist jurists, who will interpret the law as it was originally intended rather than make it. That is both a presidential responsibility, in selected judicial candidates, and a senatorial responsibility, in confirming them. We urge Republican Senators to do all in their power to prevent the elevation of additional leftist ideologues to the courts, particularly in the waning days of the current Administration."

According to Think Progress:

Activist judging is the backbone of Republican constitutional theory, not the enemy of it. Moreover, if Republicans really cared what our founding fathers thought about important constitutional questions like judicial independence, they would not even consider the idea of impeaching a judge simply because of a partisan disagreement. The Constitution provides that judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour,” not so long as a political party agrees with them