Walker's Justice Bradley votes away Fourth Amendment on case she didn't hear!!!

It seems our supposed Constitutionally conservative purists have a different way of interpreting purity than most everyone else. JS:

In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has again broadened an exception to allow police to seize and use evidence obtained from search of private places without the owner's consent to a search warrant.

The dissent called the majority's interpretation so broad as to "swallow the Fourth Amendment," which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The deciding vote came from someone who didn't even hear the case, Walker appointee Republican Justice Rebecca Bradley.

The decision Wednesday was also notable in that Justice Rebecca Bradley joined the majority that overruled the Court of Appeals, even though she had not heard arguments in the case, which occurred before her appointment Oct. 9 by Gov. Scott Walker.

In an ever expanding one party authoritarian state, with policing power that exempts the Constitution in ways that are creative and dangerous, Walker supporters still won't back away from decisions like this:

Republican Justice Annette Ziegler found that police were not investigating a crime but exercising their "community caretaker" function by checking to make sure no other injured people were in the house.

Justice David Prosser, often seen as part of the court's conservative block, has

repeatedly joined Abrahamson and Justice Ann Bradley in dissents against broadening circumstances when the "community caretaker" might excuse getting a search warrant in situations that would otherwise require that. He wrote the main dissent, joined by Abrahamson and Ann Bradley .... observed that by the time officers entered the locked room, some 20 minutes or more after they had been in the house, there was little reason to suspect someone else was in the bedroom, but plenty of reason to suspect it might house marijuana. "Officers can now easily conduct a warrantless search in the name of 'community caretaking'; they must merely articulate a hypothetical community need...based on circumstances that they observe," Prosser wrote.

The "majority's embrace of a broad, ever-expanding version of the exception risks transforming a shield for evidence encountered incidental to community caretaking into an investigatory sword."

Still, the fact that Rebecca Bradley voted to weaken the Fourth Amendment should, but probably not,  make anyone clutching their pocket Constitutions seriously reconsider their upcoming vote.

Already a Laughing Stock, Wisconsin Supreme Court clears Walker, kills off John Doe probe, orders evidence Destroyed.

It's a funny thing when a state supreme court justice declares someone innocent before ever knowing if that was true or not:

WISC: On a 4-2 vote (the majority coming from the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four conservatives), has ordered an end to a wide-ranging and secret probe into alleged election law violations during the Republican Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign. 

Justice Michael Gableman, writing for the majority wrote, "It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation," Gableman wrote ... found a key section of Wisconsin's campaign finance law is "unconstitutionally overbroad and vague."

The court ordered all all property seized in the investigation returned to its owners and all copies of evidence destroyed.

Justice Shirley Abrahamson, our former Chief Justice until Republican legislators targeted her and tossed her out, summed it up well when she wrote, "the majority opinion's theme is 'Anything Goes,'" and that we'll never know if the individuals involved were guilty or innocent. jsonline:

“The majority opinion will deny the people of this state the opportunity to determine once and for all whether the targets of the John Doe investigation are guilty of systematically violating Wisconsin's campaign finance law through undisclosed campaign coordination. The majority opinion adopts an unprecedented and faulty interpretation of Wisconsin's campaign finance law and of the First Amendment.'"

Of course more liberal justices can't be trusted or believed, so may I present to you a conservative special prosecutor:

Francis Schmitz, the (Republican) special prosecutor leading the investigation, has written in court papers that one or more of the justices should not have participated in the case because the groups being investigated had spent millions of dollars to help elect those justices. None of those justices agreed to step aside.

So how much money did each litigant spend to elect and influence the court's conservative justices?

The Wisconsin Club for Growth is estimated to have spent $400,000 for Ziegler in 2007; $507,000 for Gableman in 2008; $520,000 for Prosser in 2011; and $350,000 for Roggensack in 2013. WMC spent an estimated $2.2 million for Ziegler; $1.8 million for Gableman; $1.1 million for Prosser; and $500,000 for Roggensack. In addition, Citizens for a Strong America — a group funded entirely by the Wisconsin Club for Growth — spent an estimated $985,000 to help Prosser.

The justices … say political spending on its own is not enough to force a justice off a case.

So money doesn’t have a corrupting, or even slight influence over our elected officials, which is what Citizens United was all about? Sure, and the SCOTUS even said so in 2009 in a West Virginia case.

Blue Jean Nation's Mike McCabe, who's former watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign tracked campaign spending, talked with libertarian leaning talker Mitch Hank. It appears the federal Supreme Court may have every reason to strike down our courts corrupt conclusion, that's if John Doe prosecutors challenge their decision. Here's an audio section of that conversation:

  

Keep in mind, Walker told contributors that if they wanted to keep their identities secret, they should send their money to the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Nothing wrong there, right?

jsonline: "The Governor is encouraging all to invest in the Wisconsin Club for Growth," said an April 28, 2011, email from Kate Doner, a Walker campaign consultant, to R.J. Johnson, an adviser to Walker's campaign and the advocacy group. "Wisconsin Club for Growth can accept corporate and personal donations without limitations and no donors disclosure ... As the Governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging,"

Why conservative voters aren’t outraged is a mystery to me, unless they think Republicans will never lose power in the state. Personally, this power grab may benefit Democrats in the long run if they fully utilize the structure and dominance the GOP is cluelessly putting in place:  

Republicans who control the Legislature have put on their agenda plans to rewrite campaign finance laws, overhaul how John Doe probes are conducted and restructure the Government Accountability Board. They have been waiting for the court decisions before advancing those bills and could take them up this fall. 

State Conservative Activist Supreme Court Justices just gave law enforcement the "freedom and liberty" to perform illegal searches.

The Republican protectors of “freedom and liberty?” Guess again. Welcome to our big bold police state. You have to wonder if this is all part of their grand scheme. 

Wisconsin's conservative Supreme Court Justices just shredded the state Constitution, again, this time allowing for illegal searches based on a mistake and misinterpretation of the law. We can now be stopped and searched on a whim, while letting law enforcement come up with an excuse the to fit the occasion. 

WPR: Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling Expands Justifications For Police Stops: Case Involved Man Arrested For Drugs After He Was Pulled Over By Mistake … Hanna Schieber Jurss, a state public defender said that means motorists may be stopped even if they haven't violated any law. (The man’s) attorney Andrew Walter agrees: "I don't know how citizens can avoid being stopped because now it's not enough to follow the law. You also have to make sure your conduct is within this broader prohibition of things where an officer might believe is illegal even when it's not" … a significant reduction in the liberties of all state residents.

Conservative Justices Reduce Civil Liberties: Freedom and liberty my ass. It’s really a rightwing authoritarian Republican takeover, and a way to question everything we do, maybe even arrest us when it's convenient:

Justice David Prosser cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sets the same standard Wisconsin is now adopting. That case, Heien v. North Carolina was decided last year … Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The question here is whether reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition. We hold that it can."  

But that flies in the face of previous decisions made based on Wisconsin’s own Constitution, which continues to protect citizens from unreasonable searches. Who wants to give that up?

Attorney Andrew Walter said there is no requirement that the Wisconsin court follow the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment … the high court ruling also made it clear that such cases where searches are justified on the basis of an officer's mistaken interpretation of law should be very rare and that most mistakes of law are not going to be reasonable.

Former Chief Justice Abrahamson explained just how devastating this decision is to our freedom:

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting) … “the majority opinion adopts a new interpretation of Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. It does so solely in order to remain in lockstep with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation … What happened to precedent and stare decisis?

In Brown and Longcore, an opinion released just last year, this court held that reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop cannot rest on a law enforcement officer's mistake of law … The drafters of the Wisconsin Constitution could have simply said "ditto" and incorporated the federal Bill of Rights into the Wisconsin Constitution. But they did not. This court is in effect replacing Wisconsin's Declaration of Rights with its federal counterpart. This court is not taking seriously the Justices' oath of office to support the Wisconsin Constitution.

More specifically, declining to exclude evidence that was gathered from a traffic stop premised on a law enforcement officer's erroneous view of the law "would remove the incentive for police to make certain that they properly understand the law that they are entrusted to enforce and obey."
My position is supported by several cogent points that Justice Sotomayor makes in her dissent in Heien: 

Sotomayor: "The notion that the law is definite and knowable sits at the foundation of our legal system. Yet, Heien gives those who enforce the law leeway in interpreting and understanding it … Heien is a significant expansion of officers' authority and leads one to wonder "how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so."

Abrahamson: “Both precedent and policy compel me to conclude that a traffic stop premised on a law enforcement officer's mistake of law is unreasonable and thus unlawful under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. 

Conservative Activist Supreme Court Justices quickly oust Chief Justice Abrahamson!!!

Every branch of government is now marching in lockstep to one party authoritarian control. Where are the new sedition maps...?

Time for an update?

jsonline: State high court quickly ousts Shirley Abrahamson as chief justice: Conservatives on the Wisconsin Supreme Court picked Justice Patience Roggensack as their new leader Wednesday, dumping longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Four justices on the seven-member court voted to put Roggensack in charge just hours after state election officials certified the April 7 referendum results,

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

Just guessing but the court became a laughing stock when the nation read about how one particular conservative justice (David Prosser) decided to choke a liberal justice (Ann Walsh Bradley) over a simple disagreement. Or when he spewed profanities and threats at the chief justice. Ya think?

   

Add to that this amazing self-promotion; swing vote Justice Patrick Crooks ripped into Chief Justice Abrahamson for challenging the new constitutional amendment allowing the conservative majority to oust her...just after throwing his hat into the chief justice ring. Would I kid you?

National laughing stock? No doubt about it.   

(Crooks) had hoped she would act with more dignity after voters approved the change."I think it's not only sad, it's unfortunate. I won't give you my view of the merits of that lawsuit, but I will tell you I think it's something that should not have been done. We've become a little bit of a laughingstock, or at least she has."

In the interview, Crooks said he was considering seeking the position of chief justice himself after some of his colleagues talked to him about it. He declined to name them.

Laughing stock? My god yes. Just as interesting, Republicans have also pushed capping the age limit to eject Abrahamson, setting it at 75 or 80. That would be bad news for Crooks:

The 76-year-old justice also held out the possibility of running for re-election next year, despite suggesting to his colleagues last year that he would not seek another 10-year term.

One Party Authority over Everything: Am I the only one who’s noticed how the conservative activist justices have wreaked havoc on the court since becoming the majority, and then have the nerve to complain about all that havoc. Didn't you know, it's those minority liberal justices again.

  

So wouldn't it be better if the conservatives took over the court, becoming team players, where one philosophy rules the day? None of that dissent stuff. Crooks said exactly that…be amazed:

Crooks distanced himself from Abrahamson, saying he had a "very different" judicial philosophy than her. Regardless, he argued the decision on who should lead the court should be about who is best able to bring members of the court together, not a "philosophical tug of war." He said he felt he could serve that function. "I view the job of chief justices I think very differently than Justice Abrahamson does. I think that the chief justice is a first among equals. I think the approach that's appropriate is that you're a team player and you try to get everyone involved in the team."

Conservative voters would never tolerate tactics like those listed above from the Democrats. Like for instance; Republican politicians actually promise to nominate only conservative candidates to the courts; only conservatives have the higher calling from God and the founding fathers; “Corporations are people too” lobbyists are encouraged to spend, and win in those decidedly corporate friendly courts.

Justice Abrahamson's Lawsuit brings much needed focus on GOP scheme to "Get Shirley!!!"

The Republican idea of calming the states highest court, by replacing the supposed divisive more liberal leaning Justice Shirley Abrahamson, is a fiction mentioned at Dominique Paul Noth great blog site that critiques the new constitutional amendment. Here are a few blunt but true little known facts you won't get in the newspapers about our justices:

Rotating the fate of justice among conservatives assumes their politics make them collegial and it sure hasn't.  Law clerks current and former have stories to tell. The WMC’s chosen heir as chief justice, Patricia Roggensack, “can be a more difficult piece of work than Shirley ever was,” one told me.  Michael Gableman is openly scoffed at by his colleagues as a lesser intellectual who needs “simple things explained to him at length.”  David Prosser is seen as an unpredictable gadfly “bouncing off the walls of procedure.” And so forth. 

Abrahamson's lawsuit was quite detailed too, a fact not mentioned or analyzed by reporters. PolitiFact rated "Mostly False" the idea voters reelected her as chief justice because "the term “chief justice” in never on the ballot." That may be true, but her campaign certainly did without question:

It's not like we didn't know what the
GOP was up to...

And her ability to seize on legal holes in regulations ... Such as the continuing argument that Wisconsin voters didn't know what they were voting for back in April 2009. As the lawsuit details with evidence, “Wisconsin’s Chief” was a central statement in every piece of campaign literature and even in ads run on conservative talk radio. “Fair. Independent. Wisconsin’s Chief” was the slogan and voters would have to be living in a cave to not know they were choosing the chief justice for the next 10 years. Her campaign committee was called the “Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson Re-election Committee,” and the tagline “Wisconsin’s Chief” was everywhere.

“It was clear that a vote for her was a vote to continue her in the office of chief justice,” the lawsuit details. “...that theme of continuity in the chief justice position and would not have sought re-election if there was a question she would not continue in that role.” 

Aside from the Republican attempts to declare her too old by capping a justices age on the court, a bill still on the sidelines, the GOP authority has abandoned any subtleties in their push to remove her:

Several legislators cited state Sen. Tom Tiffany as one example of a politician assuring the press and centrist lobbying groups it was not about Shirley while assuring WMC supporters it definitely was.   

Even their own right-wing commentators took their leaders to task for not admitting this was the “Get Shirley” amendment. 

That's right, right-wingers were extremely obvious about the Republican constitutional amendment:

But let's not pretend we all don't know what's going on here. By one read: Republicans in power are using that power to hunt out and destroy pots of liberal opposition. By another read: They are unrigging the game. Maybe it's both. But just because it's political doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case, anyway.

Specifically, voters will be asked today whether they want to change how the chief justice is appointed. They should make that change.

Why conservative voters didn't think it was also odd to see big money spent on this change is anybodies guess, but the silly idea the change would bring "democracy" to the court is just plain comical, and effective:

Supporters of the change — including Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce’s group Vote Yes for Democracy, which spent at least $600,000 to get it adopted — argued it’s undemocratic to have the position go automatically to the justice with the most experience.

And yet nationally, people were shaking their heads in amazement:

Justice at Stake, a national judicial watchdog group based in Washington, issued a statement following adoption of the amendment saying a “siege of special interest money” and “big money hardball politics” led to its adoption.

While 22 other states use some sort of similar selection process, changing from one system to another and replacing the current chief justice is unprecedented, said Bill Raftery, an analyst with National Center for State Courts based in Williamsburg, Virginia. “There’s nothing comparable,” he said. “This has just not happened before. ... It’s exceptional and unique.”

Daily Beast claims Walker "just pulled off Supreme Court Coup," resulting in an end to pesky John Doe's.

Short and sweet; getting and keeping power is all that’s left of the Republican Party’s platform. Tax cuts and deregulation are just means to an end.

Protecting illegal political activity with the help of our state's highest court is the cherry on top. The long time target of the Republicans Party, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, is about to go away. Radical conservatism is now going to get the top courts rubber stamp, suddenly making shear right wing authoritarian lunacy appear "constitutional." Right, if they say so: 

Daily Beast: The Wisconsin state Senate (and now Assembly) has just paved the way for the state Supreme Court to elect its own chief justice—and the conservatives’ pick might shake up the governor’s own case. A state constitutional amendment ... will allow the court’s seven justices to vote on a chief justice ... If the bill wins voter approval April 7, the next chief justice, selected by the court’s conservative majority, will almost certainly be Justice Pat Roggensack. 

Why the rush? Gee, I wonder if Walker's presidential run has anything to do with it?

The court agreed last year to hear a case resulting from the much-publicized “John Doe” investigation into possible violations of campaign finance law by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign during the recall elections of 2011 and 2012. Spring elections are notorious for their low turnout—19 percent voted in April 2013—and the measure is expected to succeed. The court will likely have a new chief justice just in time for its ruling on the John Doe case, expected to be issued this summer.

Democrats correctly frame GOP Supreme Court attack on Abrahamson: Vendetta!

I'm encouraged. The name sprung from a question by Democratic Rep. Gary Hebl:

The most trenchant critique came from Rep. Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie): “This is not a vendetta against the Current Chief, is that true?” After (former justice) Wilcox assured the committee that it was not...

...from PR Watch: