Big Business Tries To Buy WI Supreme Corporate Chief Justice

In January, I reported how the corporate special interests were using a two-pronged attack against Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. One of the prongs was to put in a constitutional amendment to change the way the chief justice of the state supreme court is chosen.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday held a rushed hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that could create an avenue for ending Abrahamson's tenure as the chief justice. Historically, the chief justice has been the court's senior member. This has insulated the chief from disputes on the court and from outside political pressure. Under the plan advanced by conservative legislators and passed once by the Legislature, the selection of the chief justice would be politicized — with the seven justices choosing and replacing chief justices.

Backers of the measure hope to place it on the April 7 ballot. If it is passed, after a campaign that could well be influenced by significant spending from out-of-state interests seeking to undermine Wisconsin’s historic commitment to an independent judiciary, critics fear that Wisconsin could see an attempt to remove Abrahamson as chief justice before the completion of the court term to which she was elected.

Understand what this means: Currently, when an individual chosen by the voters becomes the longest-serving justice, he or she becomes the chief justice. That chief justice is not subject to the ideological whims and political twists and turns of the court; rather, he or she is accountable to the voters. If the voters do not like a chief justice, they can remove that justice at the next election. If the voters want to keep a chief justice on the job, they can re-elect that jurist.

The corporate controlled Republicans did ram through this amendment and the referendum to approve this change will appear on the April 7 ballot.

The corporate special interests, which already have their dirty money meat hooks in four of the seven supreme court justices, really want to control the chief justice position as well. As The Center for Media and Democracy reports, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has already spent big money to con the people into voting for this maleficent referendum:

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), Wisconsin's premier lobby for corporate tax breaks and low wage jobs, has unleashed a $600,000 ad blitz to strip Wisconsin's independent Chief Justice of her title just as the court prepares to take up the "John Doe" criminal probe of Scott Walker and the special interest groups that defended him against recall in 2012.

WMC's spending in the recall campaigns is one of key issues in the case. The case will be considered in secret without oral arguments by Wisconsin's Supreme Court whose conservative majority was bankrolled by WMC.

You can’t make this stuff up.

This money does not include the more than $116,000 WMC has spent on radio ads.

In comparison, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, defending Lady Justice and the constitution, have spent a relatively paltry $80,000 on radio ads, which feature the impeccable former Justice Janine Geske

WMC's claim that this referendum would bring democracy to the Supreme Court deserves only derisive laughter and a "no" vote. Their idea of democracy is to have one of the four justice they already own become Chief Justice so that they could avoid any and all responsibility for their actions, whether it be illegal politicking, polluting the environment or harming consumers through their willful neglect.

I urge all of my fellow Wisconsinites to join me in voting no on the referendum. If we are ever to get our state back, the first step is to stop ceding ground to the corporate special interests.

Republicans Launch Two Prong Attack Against Chief Justice Abrahamson

Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans have launched a two prong attack against Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in an effort to remove her authority and to remove her from the bench altogether.

In the latter prong, which the Republicans started at the end of last year, they plan on setting a mandatory retirement age which would force Abrahamson to retire almost immediately:

State Rep. Dean Knudson, R-Hudson, said he plans to introduce a bill in the upcoming legislative session setting the mandatory retirement age at 75.

If passed by the Republican-run Legislature next year, all judges — except reserve or temporary judges — who are over 75 years old would have to retire immediately or within a matter of months.

Among them are three state Supreme Court justices: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, 81, Justice Pat Roggensack, 74, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks, 76.
If Rock County Circuit Judge James Daley, 67, were to win election to the high court in April, his 10-year term would be cut short by the requirement. If Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, 64, defeats Daley, her third term would be shortened by one day.

Justice David Prosser, who turned 72 this month, also would be unable to serve his full term. It ends in 2021; Prosser would be 79.

Such legislation would give Republican Gov. Scott Walker numerous opportunities to appoint judges to his liking to fill unexpired terms of judges and justices hitting the mandatory retirement age.

Ah, but taking over the Chief Justice position and loading the Supreme Court against the people isn't enough for Scott Walker and his Republican cohorts.

Because as with all things Walker, there's more. There's always more.

Walker and his corporate cohorts also want to politicize the Chief Justice position, as John Nichols explains:

The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday held a rushed hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment that could create an avenue for ending Abrahamson's tenure as the chief justice. Historically, the chief justice has been the court's senior member. This has insulated the chief from disputes on the court and from outside political pressure. Under the plan advanced by conservative legislators and passed once by the Legislature, the selection of the chief justice would be politicized — with the seven justices choosing and replacing chief justices.

Backers of the measure hope to place it on the April 7 ballot. If it is passed, after a campaign that could well be influenced by significant spending from out-of-state interests seeking to undermine Wisconsin’s historic commitment to an independent judiciary, critics fear that Wisconsin could see an attempt to remove Abrahamson as chief justice before the completion of the court term to which she was elected.

Understand what this means: Currently, when an individual chosen by the voters becomes the longest-serving justice, he or she becomes the chief justice. That chief justice is not subject to the ideological whims and political twists and turns of the court; rather, he or she is accountable to the voters. If the voters do not like a chief justice, they can remove that justice at the next election. If the voters want to keep a chief justice on the job, they can re-elect that jurist.

Abrahamson respected the process. She sought re-election as the chief justice and the voters gave her a mandate to serve a new term on the court. Now, politicians are seeking to undo the process that Abrahamson and the voters respected.

I have been notified that the Republicans are holding a hearing on this bill on Thursday, January 15th, at 1:30 pm in 330 Southwest in the Capitol Building.

Given their interference with a woman's right to choose, pay equity and rape culture statements, the Republicans' misogyny is not a surprise.

Attacking Chief Justice Abrahamson and Lady Justice only takes their depravity to new depths.

Pat Said What?

By Jeff Simpson


Capper brought us the story last week of how Pat Roggensack likes to make up her list of endorsers and that she forgets about $20,000 in campaign donations.   Now we find out that she forgets what she just said! 

Meanwhile, the debate reignited over the 2010 exchange between Prosser and Abrahamson - with Roggensack and Abrahamson disagreeing over whether Prosser had apologized. Prosser did not return a call Wednesday.
In February 2010 Prosser called Abrahamson a "bitch," said he would destroy her and told her "it won't be a ground war."
Roggensack said last December that Prosser's comments were inappropriate but that he had immediately apologized for them.
"The incident that occurred was inappropriate, and he apologized right way," Roggensack said then.
But in a statement emailed to the Journal Sentinel this week, Abrahamson said, "Justice Prosser has never apologized to me."
Asked Wednesday about Abrahamson's statement, Roggensack said she was confident that Prosser had apologized but that she did not know when. Roggensack contended she never said Prosser had done so "right away."
"You must have put the 'right away' in there because I can't tell you when" he apologized, Roggensack said.
Roggensack made her original comment on Dec. 28 to a number of reporters. A tape of her remarks shows she twice said Prosser "apologized right away." When Roggensack was told Wednesday her earlier comments were taped, Roggensack said, "You know, if you've recorded it, print what you've recorded. This is why you and I have trouble communicating.
"You want to play 'I gotcha' with me, you don't really want to know what I have to say."
She would not answer whether Prosser had apologized directly to Abrahamson or had made public comments that Roggensack considered an apology.

If she has such a spotty memory and can not remember what she just said, how is she fit to hear important cases in the highest court of Wisconsin?  

She isn't!

Vote Ed Fallone for Supreme Court of Wisconsin!  

David Prosser is A Disgrace

We all remember what happened last year with David Prosser and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.   They were deciding whether ACT 10 was constitutional, and the Fitzgerald brothers put out the word that the Supreme Court had better decide that day.  Justice David " Ike Turner" Prosser, took the warning from the Fitzgeralds and acted on it.  When he was not getting fast enough results to please the Fitzgerald's he took matters (and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's neck) into his own hands.   After choking a fellow justice and throwing a conniption fit, he was able to get a vote and it broke down party lines, thus allowing ACT 10 to stand.  

You would think that choking a co-worker and threating to ruin your boss, would be the end of someone's job.   The problem is violence against women in today's republican party makes you a folk hero.   Christian Schneider himself threw the last shreds of integrity and dignity out the door, when he wrote a fiction peice trying so very hard(and failing) to defend David Prosser and his attack on women.  In the end while he was of course never charged, Justice Prosser was far from vindicated!

Now, thanks to some new documents being released, we find out just how incredibly immoral and vile human being David Prosser actually is.   

The state Judicial Commission voted unanimously to pursue a misconduct complaint against state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser but later deadlocked on a decision to reconsider the complaint, according to rarely seen internal records of the investigation released Wednesday.

Members split over whether to drop the case after Prosser's attorney argued the Supreme Court would be unlikely to hear the case since most of the justices witnessed or participated in the incident that prompted the investigation, a physical altercation between Prosser and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

OK, so it was a unanimous decision to pursue official misconduct charges against David Prosser for physically attacking his female co worker( amongst other things).   Yet he was able to legally maneuver out of it(so far).  We can not have a republican owning up to their responsibilities now can we?  Then they delved deeper into his attack on Justice Bradley:

Under the law, Judicial Commission investigative records are confidential unless the target of the investigation requests that they be open. Prosser and media outlets including the Wisconsin State Journal had requested access to the documents after Prosser alleged the commission was biased and unfair.

Prosser is defending himself against a commission complaint filed with the Supreme Court alleging his actions in the June 13, 2011, altercation violated rules requiring that judges cooperate with other judges, be patient, dignified and courteous and that they establish and maintain high standards of conduct.

In that incident, Prosser says that Bradley charged at him with her fists clenched and that he put his hands up in reflex, touching her neck. Bradley says Prosser put her in a "chokehold" after she ordered him to leave her office.

David Prosser ever the victim,  it was all her fault he was only defending himself.  I wonder how well he gets along with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson?

In a transcript of their Dec. 16 meeting with Prosser, commission members also focused on the justice's actions in a previous incident in which he called Abrahamson a "total bitch" and threatened to "destroy" her. Commission members later voted not to file a charge based on that Feb. 10, 2010, incident but mentioned it as supporting information in the complaint.

Prosser explained the earlier incident to commissioners by saying that the chief justice had for years been seeking to "destroy" or "emasculate" him by recruiting candidates to run against him and allegedly upstaging him at ceremonial events.

Prosser also told the commission he believes the Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to justices meeting in closed session. By allowing the commission oversight over such meetings, "you are assuming an enormous power, and you are completely unraveling the freedom of speech," he said. "It will have a chilling effect on discussion."

In the documents, Prosser described a long-simmering rivalry with Bradley. And he downplayed statements by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson that she was afraid of him, saying she has a tendency to scream when startled, "as though she was being attacked or sexually assaulted on a public street."

"She's trying to create the impression that I'm terrorizing her … and I'm saying this is total nonsense," Prosser said in an interview. "What I'm actually saying is, she's paranoid."

Wow that sounds familiar.  David Prosser is the victim yet again and if only the principal would listen and not make him angry he would not have to attack them!!!!!  To trump it all though he gets to add a little bit of making fun of women who have been sexually assaulted on top, just for good measure.  What a guy! 

They made him do it!   It was Definitely NOT his fault, but if you come back he promises NOT to do it again!  

What a despicable human being and half the State of Wisconsin Voted for him!   

Prosser's Sacred Vow

The news came out last week that the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the case of David Prosser attacking Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley had decided not to pursue criminal charges against Prosser.

This is despite the fact that Prosser admitted to laying hands on Walsh's neck without her permission.  Added to this is the fact that he said he did it out of reflex, showing his innate disposition to aggressive behaviors.

And to think that this all stemmed from the fact that Walsh told him to leave her chamber after he started bad-mouthing Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wasn't allowing him to rubber stamp Scott Walker's union busting bill fast enough. After all, you can't expect someone like Prosser to be bothered with actually reviewing the facts of a case before making his decision.  He just has to do what the Fitzgeralds tell him to do.

But in an effort to make amends, I understand that Prosser has taken a solemn oath.  He has promised to put on some ill-fitting gloves and search high and low until the real choke-holder is found and brought to justice.

More Proof That Supreme Court Decision Was Political, Not Judicial

Ten days ago, when the Supreme Court of Wisconsin made their rush decision regarding the union busting bill, many people thought they did so in a most inappropriate fashion. As I wrote at the time:

Now word as come out that the "Supreme Court" of Wisconsin has, without apparent deliberation or research of the law, has ruled the open meetings laws to be invalid and that our elected officials (or at least the Republican ones) are above the law and don't need to adhere to the laws that they themselves had passed. Needless to say, WMC spent tons of money in making sure that Annette Ziegler, Michael Gableman and David Prosser were on the bench, just so that they could shred the Constitution and the law books and make irresponsible decisions like this one.

Indeed, as Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson also pointed out:

Justice Shirley Abrahamson accused the majority of reaching a hasty decision that’s light on legal analysis, opening them up to the unnecessary charge that they “reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision.”

Abrahamson agreed in her opinion that the the challenge to the legislation raises fundamental constitutional questions. But she did not join the majority opinion because she believes the court should follow its own rules and the constitution in such a case. Thus, she believes the case should have followed the normal appeal route rather than the court taking original jurisdiction and issuing a decision that gives the case “short shrift.”

As if prescient of this, it was also widely pointed out that Prosser had made the statement during the campaign that he would be the perfect compliment, or rubber stamp, to the Walker administration.

Now there's even more reason to suspect the Supreme Court's supreme folly.

In the wake of the scandal arising from David Prosser's alleged assault on his colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the right in their desperation, has also given us the clue.

For example, Cindy Kilkenny points out a commercial for Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson from when she ran for re-election a couple of years ago.  In the commercial, as Cindy clearly demonstrates, is an appearance of Judge Maryann Sumi, who had initially and properly ruled that the union-busting, economy-killing bill was passed illegally and thus was null and void.

So now, apparently without consulting case history or of applicable case law, Prosser not only joined his colleagues in issuing a predetermined ruling, but also wrote his own opinion on the case, in which he took absolute glee in his diatribe against Judge Sumi.  His opinion it was so harshly written, it sent a tingle down Charlie Sykes' leg and he couldn't stop talking about it for days.

In other words, he fed his misogyny in a fit of temper aimed at Judge Sumi and indirectly at Chief Justice Abrahamson (whom he has a special hatred for) in retaliation against perceived wrongs caused by female authority figures.  At the same time, he was able to appease the Koch Brothers and WMC, who paid a lot of money for him to retain his seat on the Supreme Court.

Between the obvious corruption and the physical assault on another Justice, Prosser is unfit for the bench at any level and needs to be removed, either of his own volition or through actions of the other Justices or, lastly, through recall.

Furthermore, his ruling on the union busting bill should be vacated, since it's obvious that it was not based on the law or the Constitution, but on his political alliances and his own personal flaws.

PolitiFarce Part V: PolitiFail

The controversial PolitiFact in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has done it again.

I would like to draw the gentle reader's attention to this story they did during the campaign, slamming Joanne Kloppenburg for accusing the incumbent and corrupt David Prosser of prejudging cases.  They got their undies in a bundle and gave Kloppenburg the dreaded "Pants on Fire" rating for this claim.

But when the WMC bought and paid for Supreme Court ruled that the state legislation doesn't have to follow the laws of the state, they were proven incorrect - again.  Or to cite Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson on this suspicious decision (emphasis mine):

Justice Shirley Abrahamson accused the majority of reaching a hasty decision that’s light on legal analysis, opening them up to the unnecessary charge that they “reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision.”

Of course, we already knew that they were incorrect because Prosser himself told us during the campaign that he would be the "perfect compliment" to Scott Walker's maladministration.

With PolitiFail, er, PolitiFact distorting the truth so much that they could have direct bearings on elections and ergo our freedom, is it any wonder that the Wisconsin Democratic Party won't even waste the breath to talk to them anymore?