Worst Most Corrupt Conservative Activist Supreme Court Shreds Elected Office, blames "administration leviathan" and "Bureaucratic Overlords!"

It took awhile, but Republicans stuck with their plan to corrupt the judicial branch, and now they have what they needed; open and dishonest activist judges/justices legislating from the bench! This last week, Republicans were allowed to limit the governor's and AG's power:

"Constitutional original-ism?" Well, don't forget about what our state constitutional founding fathers intended too, which is now being channeled by our sitting Republican psychic mediums...I mean justices.

Good-bye Superintendent of Public Instruction: Republicans have now secured constitutionally the dismantling of public education in the future, or least greatly hold back reform and progress for years, if not decades. This was a big win for them, and an immeasurable loss for education, similar to what Republicans did to the supreme court:

JS: The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed itself Tuesday by ruling the state schools chief cannot set education policy without permission from the governor, a blow to Democrats who have controlled the state's education agency for decades.

The ruling makes successful an eight-year effort by Republicans ... Tuesday's decision overturns the court's own ruling just three years ago when justices said in Coyne v. Walker that Evers could write rules and regulations related to education policy on his own — without permission from then-Gov. Scott Walker and the Legislature — because the state constitution provides him with the power to do so.

Evers, in a statement, said "The facts didn't change in the last three years and neither did the meaning of the constitution. Only the composition of the court did.”

Surprise, Republicans waited for Majority Activist Justices to pull off Scheme: Conservative lawsuit mill WILL admitted it:

AP: In her dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley noted the new lawsuit was filed after two members of the court that had previously upheld the state superintendent's authority — justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser — were no longer on the court.

"And why are we here again? At oral argument, counsel for the petitioners was asked, 'you wouldn't be here asking a supreme court of the state of Wisconsin to overturn a decision that it just made two years ago if it were the same court, would you?' In response, counsel acknowledged, 'any lawyer has to make strategic decisions about what is likely to be successful.' Indeed," Bradley wrote. "Although nothing in our Constitution has changed since Coyne was decided, what has changed is the membership of the court."

Surprise, Chief Justice twists previous decision into Convoluted Word Salad Nonsense: Not kidding, really:

Chief Justice Pat Roggensack wrote in the majority opinion ... a footnote justifying how the court could reverse itself. She wrote the 2016 opinion was fractured with two concurrences and failed to establish a “common legal rationale.” As result there was no rationale to analyze, opening the door for another look at the issues.

Huh? Roggensack just obliterated precedent/stare decisis. 

Stare decisis is a doctrine, or an instruction, used in all court cases and with all legal issues. Stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. These past decisions are known as precedent.

Republican Justice Bradley opinion polluted with Political Trash Talk: Bradley's divisive right-wing writings in the past as a student, as it turns out, weren't so irrelevant after all. I guess she forgot the state Superintendent is an elected office determined by voters, or as Bradley puts it, the "supreme power held by the people." Bradley seems to have an issue with our overly complicated constitutionally created "administrative leviathan" known as state government. 

Justice Rebecca Bradley in a separate concurring opinion criticized what she called "the concentration of power within an administrative leviathan."

"The philosophical roots of rule by bureaucratic overlords are antithetical to the Founders' vision of our constitutional Republic, in which supreme power is held by the people through their elected representatives, and 'the creation of rules of private conduct' is 'an irregular and infrequent occurrence,'" she wrote.

Conservative Judicial Activism on trial!

Conservative judicial activism is shredding our advancing civilized society. Just a few examples come to mind...

1. Money is Speech: Citizens United was an amazing overreach, surreal.
2. Corporations are People, with constitutional Religious Rights since Hobby Lobby.
3. The Second Amendment reinterpreted. Overturning a century and a half of established law.
4. Voting Rights. A stake through the heart of the core provision of the Voting Rights Act.
5. Supreme Court ruled police officer cannot be sued for shooting Arizona woman in her front yard. This opens up a free wheeling justification to shoot first by law enforcement.

...just to name a few. Wisconsin's court is a conservatives wet dream, with laughable GOP moments like these...

1. The unresolved 2012 complaint of misconduct by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission against Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., one count towards a lack of proper decorum and civility by telling the Chief Justice”—then Abrahamson—“in the presence of other Justices, that ‘you are a total bitch.’ ” The other count involved Prosser putting his hands around the neck of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. (he “put his hands around my neck, holding my neck as though he were going to choke me.”)

2. The conservatives on the court eviscerated its standard for recusal ... A justice is not required to disqualify himself from a case even when one of the lawyers or the parties made a campaign contribution to him or an independent expenditure on his behalf during an election. Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack wrote for the conservative majority, “We elect judges in Wisconsin; therefore, judicial recusal rules have the potential to impact the effectiveness of citizens’ votes cast for judges. Stated otherwise, when a judge is disqualified from participation, the votes of all who voted to elect that judge are cancelled for all issues presented by that case.”

Wisconsin's a Leader - Running Strict Conservative Constructionist Judges: Armed with well established far-right mindless "truths," righteous Republicans poisoned the judicial branch with politics. WPR's Shawn Johnson found some amazing clips documenting just how this happened. Here's the audio, featuring these now forgotten nonpartisan words from former Justice Louis Butler back in 2008:

Butler: "I think it is inappropriate for a judge or a justice to tell you I'm a conservative or a liberal or I'm a candidate of big business or law enforcement or labor or whoever...because you're trying to send a signal that if you vote with me I'll vote with you. And that's not what the justice system is all about."  

Because the law is strictly a conservative thing now, Screnock can say the most outrageous Republican cliches without hesitation. And Walker voters love smearing this sh*t in everyone face:

Screnock: "She is not only dancing along the line, she's crossed the line...what she is calling values is a liberal activist agenda."  

Will the now Borg-like WOW counties valiantly support another judicial attack on our system of law? You bet.

Dog-whistles Gone, NRA Justice Candidate Screnock said of Rebecca Dallet: "What she's calling values is a liberal activist agenda." Wow!

The first candidate debate for the Supreme Court came and went without a single headline declaring candidate Judge Michael Screnock the wildly conservative activist we thought he was, all brought to us by the deep campaign pockets of the NRA and Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce lobbyists. 

Why reporters didn't jump all over the comment featured below is stunning. No, seriously, you won't believe it.

Screnock first suggested he and his big monied conservative financiers had a lock on "Wisconsin values" like "honesty, integrity, hard work, follow the golden rule....those are values," because liberal Wisconsinites don't also have those same values? If that wasn't bad enough, Screnock dived headfirst into Trumpian cesspool:

Screnock: "What she (Dallet) is calling values, is a liberal activist agenda. She's talked about workers rights..."

Ouch? Workers in Amerca have rights? Who wants that? Guess the corporate takeover of our courts is nearly complete:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walker's Wisconsin new nationwide benchmark for Corrupt and Politicized State Supreme Court!!!

In a short span of time, Wisconsin has become the go-to example as the state with the most partisan and corrupt Supreme Court in the country. And that's saying something.

Kansas is about to go "Wisconsin," by drafting a bill to hold partisan elections for the court. Even worse, they're requiring the governor to choose the candidates, which then have to be approved by the state senate for confirmation. Not bad when you have a one party Republican lock on state government. It's all part of the governors attack on the court, as he pressures them during the appeals process.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback's retaliatory attack came after the supreme court decided the dramatic cuts to school funding and the distribution of that money were unfair and unconstitutional. What happened next was mind-boggling:

The legislature and the governor’s response was to pass and sign a law that first stripped the State Supreme Court of administrative power over lower state courts. And then to pass and sign another law that stripped the state’s entire court system of funding if any court struck down any part of the previous law.

I'm posting this because of the embarrassing reference to Wisconsin as the poster child for judicial corruption, which apparently is the new GOP template for turning our courts into political arms of the party. Way to go. The New Yorker:

Kansas’s governor, Sam Brownback, had pointedly pressured Chief Justice Lawton Nuss and his colleagues on the state’s highest court. A trial court had found, “beyond any question,” that the state system of financing public schools was unconstitutional … and recently heard oral argument in an appeal of the ruling. Brownback claimed, “This is the people’s business, done by the people’s house.”
 This past December, the State Supreme Court ruled that the first of the retaliatory laws is unconstitutional … the ruling put in jeopardy all of the judiciary’s funding.

Last week, the legislature blinked, passing a bill that would reverse the defunding law. The bill is being hailed as a victory … but a short-lived one. Republicans have drafted bills calling for a system in which the governor would nominate and the State Senate would confirm justices.
Republicans have also drafted bills calling for partisan election of justices. 

That has proved to be a travesty in many states, but particularly in Wisconsin, as I have reported. Since 2000, when spending in judicial elections jumped significantly, they have become a case study in the worst aspects of money in politics. Spending by special interests, which are clearly concerned about the decisions that judges reach rather than their capability and impartiality in reaching them, has grown dramatically as a share of total spending. An increasing portion of that spending has come from national organizations or their local affiliates, which are, again, clearly concerned about results, with most of the money coming from the political right.

Just to give you an idea, from the UW, Howard Schweber described the current condition of the court on WPR:

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.”

Walker's ally in Crime, the Rogue Conservative Activist Supreme Court, now freely legislating from the bench!!!

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is officially just another political arm of the most powerful crooked governor the state has ever seen, Scott Walker. His protection racketeers, ass kisser AG Brad Schimel and the shameless majority of conservative activists on the Supreme Court, are doing everything they can to shield Walker from prosecution.

As I was reading this, I couldn't help but think of this recent quote, "The ... government has grown arrogant, condescending and outright paternalistic." Oddly, that was Paul Ryan describing Democrats, in a moments of breathtaking projection.

Be amazed. From PRWatch:

Republicans replaced Abrahamson as chief justice with Roggensack.

In "Extraordinary" Move, WI Supreme Court Fires Scott Walker Prosecutor to Stave-Off SCOTUS Review.

"What a mess this court has wrought!" Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson declared in the latest chapter in the state's John Doe legal saga.

On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's majority contorted itself to find a new way to protect both Scott Walker and the Court's biggest supporters--not to mention itself--following its decision in July rewriting the state's limits on money in politics and ending the "John Doe" investigation into Walker's campaign coordinating with dark money groups.

Wednesday's ruling was supposed to be a straightforward decision on a motion to reconsider, in light of additional evidence, that Walker and his allies had violated the campaign finance laws that the Court upheld in July. The Court denied that motion, but then (in a lengthy unsigned opinion) went further, rewriting its July decision to fire the Republican Special Prosecutor who had led the investigation, Francis Schmitz, making it harder for him to challenge the justices' conflicts-of-interest by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Those conflicts arise from the fact that the same groups that coordinated with Walker's campaign were among the majority's biggest financial supporters, raising concerns under U.S. Supreme Court precedent about whether the justices should have heard the case at all.

"The miscalculation I made in this investigation was underestimating the power and influence special interest groups have in Wisconsin politics," said Schmitz, a retired U.S. Army colonel and former counter-terrorism prosecutor. "My career in the military and as a federal prosecutor fighting violent criminals and terrorists did not fully prepare me for the tactics employed by these special interest groups." 

Wednesday's decision was "extraordinary," said Janine Geske, respected former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who now teaches at Marquette Law School. "To somehow remove the lawyer representing one of the parties after the opinion [has been issued] is extraordinary," she told the Center for Media and Democracy.

"It puts the case in a very odd situation, removing counsel so he cannot file an appeal," Geske said, with no clarity for how other prosecutors might be able to intervene.

"This extraordinary action is, as far as I can determine, unprecedented and could have the effect of insulating the Court's decision from further review," said Susan Crawford, an attorney at Cullen Weston Pines & Bach. "The Court, in terminating the special prosecutor's appointment immediately, knew that its decision would compromise the ability of the special prosecutor--the sole party representing the prosecution—to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court." 

It also looks like money...big surprise, buys just enough votes to turn an election in the states highest court:

The Court rewriting its decision and firing Schmitz might be viewed not only as the majority protecting their biggest financial supporters and Scott Walker, but also as an effort to protect themselves. That's because the Court's four-justice majority was elected to the bench with at least $10 million in spending from precisely the same groups accused of coordinating with Walker, and precisely the same groups that were under investigation in the John Doe. 

Those groups, Wisconsin Club for Growth and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, have been the dominant spenders on Wisconsin Supreme Court races in recent years, in most cases outspending the justices themselves. In 2011, the groups and their offshoots together spent $3.7 million supporting Justice David Prosser, five times as much as Prosser's own campaign, in an election decided by a mere 7,000 votes. Three years before, WMC's spending in support of Justice Michael Gableman had come in at five-and-a-half times what Gableman's own campaign spent, and WiCFG also surpassed the Gableman campaign's spending, in a race he won by 20,000 votes.

In other words, if it weren't for the millions spent by WiCFG and WMC, Justices Gableman and Prosser might not be on the bench at all. Schmitz specifically asked the two to step aside in light of this apparent conflict-of-interest but declined.

By rescinding Schmitz' appointment as Special Prosecutor, it makes it much harder for him to challenge the justices' conflicts-of-interest before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh, then there's using hearsay and anecdotal right wing bullshit in the high courts decision:

The majority's "rationale simply seems invented to justify the pre-ordained desired result," Justice Abrahamson wrote in dissent. Abrahamson's dissent noted that, in July, "The majority opinion and Justice Ziegler's concurrence to the majority opinion relied on facts that were not in the record, citing blogs and media reports as authoritative sources on how the search warrants were executed." The justices' unquestioning endorsement of right-wing bloggers' unsubstantiated claims about unconstitutional "pre-dawn, armed, paramilitary-style raids" were repeated in lawsuits by groups tied to the investigation--and subsequently undermined by actual evidence.

Those allegations fell apart after prosecutors released a recording of the 2011 search, which showed a cordial and professional investigation. This matters, Abrahamson noted, because prosecutors are still being sued by the groups and individuals under investigation. The factual record in the John Doe case is necessary so prosecutors can mount a defense based on facts rather than the heated rhetoric advanced by the blogs and media outlets tied to the groups under investigation. But the prosecutors have been barred from intervening in the case--but the Court has gone out of its way to keep most filings secret. Abrahamson wrote, "Placing filings under seal is the exception to the rule. In the face of virtually total secrecy of filings since July 16, 2015, the public cannot understand the basis for the four justices' decisions," noting that the sealings "raises significant First Amendment, state constitutional, statutory, and common law issues, and may be challenged as erroneous." "Why the secrecy?," she asked.

Walker takes on State Constitution with Activist Supreme Court justices, hoping to reverse past rulings, take control of public education.

Now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is stacked with activist conservative justices who have unapologetically legislated from the bench, Republican Governor Scott Walker can now centralize power by legally wiping out past decisions to fit in with his new authoritarian state.

How and what our kids are taught in school is the next important step in holding power, and the movement to control curriculum is gathering steam. Walker wants the constitutional office of the state superintendent to march to his edicts, tossing small government out the window, and replacing a qualified educator with partisan legislative freeloaders who failed in the private sector.

Most importantly, this is a redo, and a real test for the activist court; will it unashamedly rule in the governors favor, throwing out a fairly recent court decision. The only things that's change in Wisconsin is the radicalized party in charge.

(A) 1996 Supreme Court ruling stopped then-Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) from placing the education department under his control.

Walker's style, to win and then destroy his opponents, rolls on this time targeting the state's Constitution:

AP: The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn a nearly 20-year-old ruling that protected powers of the state superintendent of schools from being taken away by the Legislature or governor.

The court heard arguments Tuesday in a case challenging a 2011 law that gives the governor the power to approve and block administrative rules being enacted by the state superintendent. Lower courts have struck down the law as it applied to state Superintendent Tony Evers and the department he oversees.

WISC

Judge Rebecca Bradley's Free Ride to the Top...beats working.

I'll be darned, it looks the party of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is really the party of "it's who you know" crony appointments.

After appointing her twice before, Scott Walker could have let Judge Rebecca Bradley earn her place on the State Supreme Court, by running a competitive campaign and convincing voters she was qualified for the job. Nope, we're talking Scott Walker here after all. Credit Bradley too, her taste for free rides to the top of the legal ladder was just too tempting.

Another thing. After hearing how the ex-judges at the nonpartisn GAB couldn't hide their obvious political biases...


...Walker claims Judge Rebecca Bradley has no such inclination, and Bradley agrees. After all, why would anyone question her impartiality with a resume filled with the following...

She has served as president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers group, and has belonged to the Republican National Lawyers Association and the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal group.

What's so biased about the libertarian Federalist interpretation of the law, or pushing conservative orthodoxy via the National Lawyers Association? Am I just being partisan?

But Bradley clearly differentiated herself from those other judges overseeing elections at the GAB, on Upfront with Mike Gousha. Despite her activism, she has been able to put all that aside...?

But as we've heard from other Republican legislators, judges are not impartial, but in fact partisan with an agenda:

Speaker Robin Vos: "The notion that people are nonpartisan is difficult for people to accept, every human being has partisan inclinations."

State Rep. Joe Sanfelippo (R-New Berlin): "It's impossible for the GAB to be entirely nonpartisan in its current form … make the agency completely partisan."

Scott Walker: “More so than an investigation, I think it’s appropriate just to get rid of (the board) and replace it,”

The day after the state Supreme Court ruled to end the (John Doe) investigation, Wisconsin Club for Growth — the conservative group at the center of the John Doe investigation — led the charge to abolish the GAB.

“GAB was a bad idea whose time has gone,” the group’s director, Eric O’Keefe, told radio host Charlie Sykes. “They need to eliminate it.”

So if ex-judges can't separate their partisan beliefs on the GAB, why would we think "Justice" Rebecca Bradley wouldn't be just as partisan a conservative activist Supreme Court Justice? 

News outlets roll over again; let Walker off the hook with Bradley appointment to Supreme Court.

It didn’t take long for Wisconsin media to act oblivious to Scott Walker’s outrageous partisan behavior again. Remember, the only reason this guy is governor is because news outlets kept letting Walker off the hook for every obvious blunder, bad policy decision and flat out failure since he was County Executive. Criticism is “liberal.”

In the case of appointing Judge Rebecca Bradley to the Supreme Court bench, red flags and jaws should have dropped, and accusations of cronyism should have been flying, knowing what Walker had done for Bradley career in the past.

In fact, Bradley would have not much of a career if it wasn’t for Walker:

Walker appointed Bradley to the District 1 Court of Appeals in Milwaukee in May. Before her stint as an appeals judge, Bradley spent three years on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, after Walker put her on that court in 2012.

Really? 3 jobs, 3 Walker appointments, and no one thinks that's odd? So the media didn’t feel duped again when Walker pretended to “consider” other candidates?

The final insult was this additional media quick mention, and pass. WKOW:

AP: Rebecca Bradley's campaign for Wisconsin Supreme Court reserved the website domain name "justicerebeccabradley.com" the day before applications were due for an appointment to the state's highest court she eventually received.

Nothing? Which leaves the truth about Walker’s actions up to the “left,” allowing right wingers to discount out of hand this troubling expansion:

One Wisconsin Now, says reserving the website name that early is "further proof the fix was in from the start."

Melissa Mulliken, campaign manager for Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, said, “It gives the appearance of the kind of cronyism that has defined Scott Walker’s administration.”

Claude Covelli, a Madison attorney who sought the appointment but lost out to Bradley, said it appears that Walker may have instigated a “sham application process.”

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. 

Conservative State Supreme Court brings certainty to more Dysfunction and Infighting.

It's always just a little scary when our authoritarian "friends" on the right promise us harmony and togetherness with them in control. Gone would be all those nasty disagreements and "leftist" attempts to destroy the country. With Republicans in charge, we can now return confidence and certainty to our legal system.

And so it is with our State Supreme Court, often considered a beacon of justice and collegiality, or so we're being told by conservative Chief Justice Roggensack. Now that majority republican politicians managed to put their party in charge of the court, we'll finally have peace and civility. But as the headline pictured here demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth, and things are only getting worse. jsonline:

"Creative Destruction?"

(Moderate) Justice Crooks says (Republican) Chief Justice Roggensack threatened to throw justices off cases: Days before three state Supreme Court justices skipped ceremonies to admit new lawyers to the bar, Justice N. Patrick Crooks accused newly elected Chief Justice Patience Roggensack of breaking court rules by threatening to throw him off a case without any authority. Crooks and another justice also contended Roggensack had violated court rules by scheduling a conference to discuss three cases without the permission of all seven justices, emails between the justices show.

That prompted a strongly worded reply from Crooks on May 17. "The closed conference that you have scheduled for May 18, 2015, is a violation of our rules, since it was not on the court's calendar, and the unanimous consent required has not been received," he wrote. "Despite that, you apparently have decided to proceed. I object.

"If we do not have your votes to consider at conference, the opinions will show any justice who does not send in his or her vote for consideration at decision conference as having withdrawn from the case," Roggensack wrote.

The exchanges are the latest sign of turmoil on a court that has drawn national attention for infighting. Their disputes have been on public display in recent weeks because of a fight over who should run the court.

Thankfully the courts liberal voices won't be able to disrupt the republican agenda anymore. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court Republicans Destroyed Integrity, Credibility with Chief Justice ouster, name calling and choking.

So, maybe our activist conservative state supreme court isn't just something dreamed up by Democrats? Getting major notice, our completely dysfunctional and discredited court. And this is just a sample:

New Yorker: The discredit to the court caused by the toothless recusal rule is now unmistakable, as it faces the most controversial legal matter in the state since the

budget-repair/collective-bargaining case. It is about what is known as the second John Doe investigation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, immediately stayed that part of the order and, last September, a unanimous panel of three judges overturned the ruling. Frank Easterbrook, a conservative who is one of the country’s most respected judges, wrote the opinion. Calling the lower court’s decision “imprudent” and “unnecessary,” he said that “the policy against federal interference in state litigation is especially strong when the state proceedings are criminal in nature.”

He also emphasized, “No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes (‘clearly’ or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups—let alone that the First Amendment forbids even an inquiry into that topic.” The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering whether to weigh in.

All of the Wisconsin justices look a lot like politicians, in particular the conservatives, who came to the bench with the support of powerful and aggressive political groups. Those justices’ integrity is compromised, as plainly as if they had personally solicited every dollar that helped elect them—and that helped drag the standing of their court so low.

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.

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:

Retired Judge Sumi on Act 10 Decision and the Supreme Court that overturned it....

From WPT's Here and Now, a little gloves off background from Judge Maryann Sumi on Act 10 and the politically divided conservative activist State Supreme Court:

Anchor Frederica Freyberg talks to former Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi on her career and Act 10 decision.

They Must Think We’re Stupid: Conservative Activist Justices pushing Constitutional Amendment putting them in Charge!!

The media, like the Journal Sentinel, must think were really that dumb. In the story below, 3 of the 4 conservative Supreme Court Activist Justices called Republican legislators urging passage of an amendment that would basically put them in charge of the court. Nothing too biased about that?

But the article isn't sure ALL of them urged passage, even though they made calls to Republican leadership, and leadership and informal discussions...about the weather? Seriously?

jsonline: State Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack contacted Republican state senators urging support of an amendment to the state constitution that could put her in charge of Wisconsin's high court.

Justice Michael Gableman also called at least one senator's office in support of changing the 124-year-old provision of the constitution that awards the job of chief justice to the most senior member of the court.

The article did state the obvious:

Lobbying for matters before the Legislature by justices is permissible, but doing so runs the risk of deepening an already yawning rift on the court.

The following doesn't pass the smell test:

Justice David Prosser also called Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) but an Ellis aide said he did not know whether Prosser had urged support for the bill.

Yea, right.

With firm majorities in the legislature and Supreme Court, there’s little reason to be subtle:

A lead sponsor of the change, Sen. Tom Tiffany (R-Hazelhurst), said he reached out to Roggensack on the proposal and she expressed support for it.

Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) originally drafted the proposal. Asked if he had written it at the urging of members of the court, he said: "I honestly can't remember because so many people wanted it done. I really can't remember who approached me first."

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and his aides had "informal discussions" with some of the justices on the proposal.

“Informal discussions?” 

State Republican’s Brazen act of Power: Tear Down that Wall of Separation of Powers, between the Judicial and Legislative Branch of Government.

Republicans have a certain air of confidence knowing their state Supreme Court is actively conservative. It's fascinating to watch Republicans go absolutely power mad with their now super majorities and safe gerrymandered districts. With a lock on the massive network of conservative media statewide, it's time to plunder.

People still like the guy....

This is the new conservatism, the kind of government Scott Walker is advancing in Wisconsin, and later nationwide if given the opportunity.

It even plays well with the safer, more desperate conservative constituents, who are more politically defensive due to all the recall elections that would have “stolen” their original vote. They'll show us, even if they take the state down with them.

Like Rep. Peters Barca said, “If there is any doubt democracy is at risk in this state, then this is exhibit A."

jsonline-Patrick Marley: Orders by trial judges blocking state laws could be quickly overturned by lawyers - at least for a time … The court limits were advanced by Republicans in response to a series of court rulings that stalled some of their signature achievements over the last two years. Since 2011, circuit judges have blocked all or parts of laws backed by Republicans that required voters to show photo ID at the polls, limited collective bargaining for public employees and expanded the governor's power over administrative rules.

But the limits themselves may be unconstitutional, according to a review by nonpartisan lawyers who work for the Legislature. Democrats argued the proposed court limits would be found unconstitutional, because they improperly interfere with the judiciary, as former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske has said.

A recent memo from the Legislative Council - a nonpartisan office that advises the Legislature - said "it appears possible that portions of the bill could be found unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine." Madison attorney Lester Pines, a Democrat who has successfully sued to block some GOP laws in recent years, said if the bill becomes law he would file a legal challenge and ask the state Supreme Court to immediately take it up.

This will pass and be challenged. Conservatives statewide will love the thought of one party rule and the subjugation of the minority liberal elements in the state. It's all so breathtaking to watch. 

Walker cuts Wisconsin's Court System Funding Again, by Mistake or in another Power Grab?

Slashing and cutting their way to reduce the size of government, Scott Walker and state Republicans apparently forgot about the last slashed budget. Is anyone in the Capitol paying attention?

Thanks to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, these nincompoops were kindly informed of their mistake. Here's the audio:

WPR: As Republican state lawmakers review Governor Scott Walker's proposed budget, they are considering reducing the amount Walker would cut from Wisconsin's court system. Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson told lawmakers it amounts to the largest cuts in the history of the court system. What has some legislators worried is that the governor's budget may include what they consider to be a “double cut” of what the state spends on its court system. That is partly because the last budget required temporary cuts to the courts in both the last two years and in the next two. Add to that the new cuts proposed in this budget.

Doh!

Abrahamson got some attention from legislators. Republican Assembly Joint Finance Committee Co-Chair John Nygren says, “We need to figure out what's really going on there and I don't think that's the legislature's intent — to make a double cut to the courts.”

Ya think? But even stranger is the bizarre comparison made by the Walker Authority;  

Governor Walker's budget director told lawmakers that as a percentage, the cuts to the court system were smaller than cuts to the Governor's office. But the size of the court budget in terms of dollars, people and buildings is much larger to begin with.

There’s no excuse for this level of bad state management, unless Walker wants to weaken our courts for more political power.