Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Conservatives maneuver a demotion for Chief Justice Abrahamson

Unable to defeat her at the polls, conservatives managed to arrange the certain removal of Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson from the court's top post awarded her by seniority, having convinced a majority of voters in a low-turnout election that it would be better to have the court's conservative majority elect one of their own installed on the court by big corporate money to manage the state's judiciary.

The right's insider-smarty pants operatives couldn't defeat Abrahamson in earlier elections, and also couldn't beat her fellow liberal Ann Walsh Bradley tonight for a fresh ten-year term.

But these conservative master manipulators no doubt are high-fiving each other and comforting themselves at the country club bar over their adjusting the rules to complete the vendetta they held against Abrahamson for having had the intellect and audacity and sense of history to oppose Scott Walker's Act 10 bomb, his Voter ID push, and his ultra-partisan and self-serving, near dictatorial grip on state institutions.

So will it be Chief Justice David Prosser? Michael Gableman? Annette Zeigler. Patience Roggensack - - all stamped out by the same far-right cookie cutter and its corporate money machine? To further Scott Walker's agenda, and his legislative allies' reactionary handiwork?

This ballot-box and constitutional farce to bring a so-called solution to no known problem - - the 'need' to change the method of chief justice selection in Wisconsin without admitting that the whole thing was personal, partisan and putrid - - reminds me of the wise words spoken by one Cathy Stepp, a former state senator and now the corporate face of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, who went on a celebrated rant about procedural unfairness, as she saw it, when she and the GOP didn't yet have their paws on all the levers of power in this state:
It's always the fine print in these things that have the heaviest hit.

Just another example of the democrats game plan: Change the Rules to Fit the Players.

Shout it with me, now: HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS DEMOCRAT.


Sue said...

This is a standout example of the affect of money on elections. The change in leadership question was the only thing that got any substantial ad dollars this time around, and those dollars all came from the anti-Abrahamson side in an election that went to a judge who sides with Abrahamson most of the time.
I nominate Prosser. He will keep a firm hold on things, and his low-key public demeanor will show him in his best possible light.

Anonymous said...

if Bradley won, how can the maneuver.

shouldn't it be about the same votes for each?

Anonymous said...


prosser is not a good man.

not at all,

can you prove he is?

Dave M. said...

Anon @1:11, Sue's subtle sarcasm often makes my day. Can you think of someone on whom Prosser had a firm hold? Would anyone - even a supporter - describe his hydrophobic ranting about destroying Abrahamson as low-key?

Sue said...

Of course I can't. But wouldn't it be fun to see him trying to control his temper - having to BEHAVE HIMSELF - in front of everyone in a high-profile position?
This is a man who choked a fellow justice ('firm hold') and grabbed a microphone from a reporter ('low-key public demeanor').
I'd love to see him show Wisconsin voters what they just agreed to.

Anonymous said...

thanks for clarification,

stupid me.

Sue said...

Dave M.:
Aww, thanks.
We're on the same side, no worries.