On, Shirley Abrahamson
She's suing to keep the Chief Justiceship awarded her based on the law in place when she was elected in 2009 - - thus challenging yesterday's vindictive, special-interest campaign to install a conservative in her senior seat - - and is suing personally the individual six other Justices to prevent them from electing her successor.
Call it RecuseFest!
She's not going quietly to the end of the bench. I love it.
And I suppose the next step in this anti-Abrahamson effort will be the promised GOP bill to force her off the bench altogether by setting a mandatory retirement age for even duly-elected, legally-serving sitting judges who just happen to be less than her 82 years.
So the Legislature and Walker, assuming he'd sign the bill, can join the justices as lawsuit defendants, this time fighting every Wisconsin older person dissed by an ageist culture.
On, Shirley Abrahamson.
Call it RecuseFest!
She's not going quietly to the end of the bench. I love it.
And I suppose the next step in this anti-Abrahamson effort will be the promised GOP bill to force her off the bench altogether by setting a mandatory retirement age for even duly-elected, legally-serving sitting judges who just happen to be less than her 82 years.
So the Legislature and Walker, assuming he'd sign the bill, can join the justices as lawsuit defendants, this time fighting every Wisconsin older person dissed by an ageist culture.
On, Shirley Abrahamson.
5 comments:
How dumb and tunnel-visioned are the WisGOPs that they couldn't put in an "effective date" in their "hurt Shirley" amendment, or could wait it out for 4 years.
Not only are they criminally selfish and arrogant, they can't even cheat well!
WisGOP would have included an effective date, IF they were pushing the amendment for honest and honorable reasons. They weren't.
Interesting that given our state's dire economic situation and need for jobs, an amendment such as this one would be at the top of WisGOP's mind.
Interesting, too, that Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce invested $600,000 in a 'Yes' vote for the amendment. What could they possibly gain? (As if we don't know the answer to that question!)
Is it possible that this maneuver has something to do with the John Doe case that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear later this month? The case that poses a significant conflict of interest for at least four members of the Court?
Thanks James,
Should have refreshed the browser before mailing.
This is awesome.
Agreeing with Justice Abrahamson and Jake.
Even having read the ballot wording ahead of time and knowing to vote NO, I had to double read it in the voting booth. 10% percent of the eligible voters changed the constitution.
This will come back to haunt the "R," faction when their preferred Chief Justice will have to be re-selected evey two years.
If this is not about sticking it to Shirley Abrahamson, then there should be no problem with allowing her to complete her term.
DING! DING! DING! Let's ask AG Brad Schimel if he's going to use taxpayer dollars to try to get Shirley removed as CJ. And what reasoning he would give to do so
Post a Comment