The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Slowing Down the Impeachment Drive in Wisconsin
An unusual move in an unusual impeachment
In a hotly contested election, the voters of Wisconsin flipped control of the state supreme court from the Republicans to the Democrats. The election of Janet Protasiewicz gave the liberal wing on the officially nonpartisan court a 4-3 majority. Protasiewicz won by a sizable margin in a contest widely understood to be about the future of abortion rights and legislative apportionment in the state.
Over the summer, Republicans in Wisconsin began to talk about impeaching the newly elected justice before she could sit on a case involving the current legislative maps. Republicans are demanding that the justice recuse herself from the apportionment case given her campaign statements about the existing maps and her receipt of large campaign donations from the Democratic Party. A failure to recuse would constitute the impeachable offense in the state proceedings.
Republicans have a large majority in the Assembly (the lower chamber), and just enough members in the state Senate to convict, if the GOP senators all stick together. The more interesting possibility is that the Assembly might impeach the justice and the Senate might delay a trial -- or fail to hold a trial at all. When Nancy Pelosi slow-walked the impeachment of President Donald Trump, there were no legal consequences. Not so in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, like in many states, an impeached judge is immediately suspended from exercising the power of the office until the conclusion of an impeachment trial. The Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly could prevent Protasiewicz from ruling on cases without ever testing whether Republicans could hold together through a senate trial and without forcing Senate Republicans to cast what is likely to be a politically difficult vote.
An impeachment purely for the sake of suspension would be an extreme case of constitutional hardball, and if Republicans in Wisconsin can get away with it partisans in other states are surely likely to think seriously about trying it themselves.
A Democratic attorney has filed suit in state court seeking an injunction against any possible impeachment.
Meanwhile, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos seems to be trying to slow down the impeachment train. He announced that he is appointing a panel of three former supreme court justices to write a report on the scope of the legislature's impeachment power. An extraordinary move that if nothing else puts off a decision on the impeachment question for the "next few weeks."
Extraordinary developments that will bear close watching.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How is a request for an injunction against the legislature not sanctionably frivolous?
The Wisconsin constitution allows for impeachment for "corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors", neither of which applies here: Justice Protasiewicz has committed no crimes or misdemeanors, and has barely been in office. The Republicans are proposing to impeach her for campaign statements and campaign contributions received (which would equally seem to require recusal of conservative justices).
The only one of the panel Vos has convened who is known is David Prosser, whose Supreme Court service included attempting to choke a liberal justice (he appeared to have serious anger management issues) and failures to recuse from what appear to be similar cases.
https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/impeachment-review-panel-includes-david-prosser-a-conservative-former-justice-who-was-a-republican-assembly-speaker/
It's disputed whether that choking occurred.
How often is criminal conduct not disputed?
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-describes-violence-that-led-to-choking/
Other Supreme Court justices were present, several backed Prosser's version of the event,.and he was cleared. Note there were also.allegations against Bradley ad the aggressor:
"Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett, a special prosecutor in the case, said that after reviewing investigators' reports, she decided there's no basis to file charges against either Justice David Prosser or Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who accused Prosser of choking her.
Barrett, who is a Republican, told The Associated Press that the accounts of the other justices who were present when the alleged altercation occurred varied widely, however she declined to elaborate.
"I believe a complete review of the report suggests there is a difference of opinion. There are a variety of statements about what occurred ... the totality of what did happen does not support criminal charges against either Justice Bradley or Justice Prosser," Barrett said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44275354
Campaigning for the bench on the basis of how she would rule on cases she had not yet heard is not grounds?
She did not say how she would rule in any case. Prohibiting a "a candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues" is unconstitutional; Republican Party of Minnesota v. White.
In any case, do you think it's a crime, a misdemeanor, or that this was corrupt conduct in office while campaigning for the office? (I suppose they might have impeached her with respect to her previous position as judge where she would not hear any such cases, but they haven't impeached all the conservative judicial candidates who have done the same.) If they were serious about overturning an election result they didn't like, they would have at least organized an armed insurrection to invade the State Capitol.
It's like these dumbasses never voted for "proudly pro-life" judicial candidates.
It’s standard operating procedure for the modern authoritarian party.
There is nothing modern -- or destined for success -- about these Republican clingers.
How is the impeachment of a judge who has not heard a case not sanctionably frivolous
Who would be sanctioning whom, and for what? Can you find a single case where a legislature has been sanctioned by a court for an act like impeachment, appointment, or passing bills?
As a matter of fact, yes. The infamous case of Governor v. Nevada State (2003), recorded on this very blog 20 years ago. http://www.volokh.com/2003_07_06_volokh_archive.html#105788769924713715
Please be specific. Who do you think was sanctioned by whom in that case?
The Nevada Supreme Court required the state legislature to raise sufficient funds for public education in the state contra the 2/3 vote constitutional requirement for any tax increase. That sure sounds like a sanction to me.
It's right there in the text of the opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2003/41679-4.html
I am happy to report that the Nevada Supreme Court--usually a band drunken cowboys--sobered up and reversed itself a few years later: https://volokh.com/posts/1158019606.shtml
It is not. A sanction is punishment imposed on a party for doing (or not doing) something.
Don't know, but blah blah political blah blah any old reason blah blah whatever the legislature defines it as blah blah weapon against political enemies, since it is political, is a-ok, only stopper is voters.
So...yeah, this shit sandwich was built by those who know better, but didn't care because of political expediency of the moment.
Who sanctions the legislature, other than the voters?
"A Democratic attorney has filed suit in state court seeking an injunction against any possible impeachment."
So he is asking the court to prevent the legislature from voting?
That should be an interesting case.
Seems like a pretty clear separation of powers issue.
The legislature votes to impeach a justice on the court. The court issues an injunction against the legislature to stop the impeachment.
It seems wildly premature, since she hasn't been impeached yet and might not be. If they don't impeach her, or if they impeach her and the Senate acts on it -- removing her so that the governor can appoint an equivalent justice, or not removing her so she resumes her position -- then there's nothing for the courts to act on since they're following the constitutional process. Delaying the Senate trial indefinitely to block her or a possible replacement seems like it might violate due process, even if there's no right to a speedy impeachment trial.
Ultimately, based on general separation of powers principles, I agree that courts have no role in judging whether an impeachment is justified.
On the other hand, a legislative subpoena must still comply with the Constitution. For example, a legislature ordinarily cannot permanently deprive someone of property that is tangible evidence of some legislative hearing, even though a temporary seizure might be appropriate.
For example, imagine that a legislative committee required expensive artwork that was properly relevant to some hearing to be produced via subpoena. After the hearing was over and the artwork was no longer relevant, that legislature can't just keep the artwork, permanently displaying it in legislature's building without paying for it. And I don't think the legislature can get around the obligation to eventually return the property by forever refusing to formally adjourn the hearing that initially led to its seizure.
While the legislature may similarly seize the property of the justice here in question if she is impeached, I do not believe that it may permanently deprive her of her office by refusing to hold an impeachment trial. Otherwise, it will have permanently deprived her of her property interest in her office without due process of law.
What makes you think she has a property interest in her office?
I encourage Republicans to keep this up.
It will make it easier to overcome the objections of those who want to be lenient toward them down the road.
I invite your side to keep it up. You know, the ones arguing that Trump doesn't have any due process rights when it comes to being disqualified from office. If he doesn't, she doesn't. And vice versa.
I have not followed that one carefully, but who has advocated a lack of due process rights with respect to disqualification from office?
Some dumbasses have aimed at accusation at the Baudes and Paulsens and Calabresis of the world, for example, but the silly positions of those dumbasses deserve no respect.
Are you a lawyer?
I agree the request for an injunction against the legislature is frivolous (though so are the grounds for impeachment). That said, at this point Wisconsin Republicans aren't even pretending to care about democratic elections. Why don't they just pass a law declaring that Republicans will hold power in perpetuity; it would be more honest and save the cost of having elections that the GOP doesn't care about anyway.
Elections are fine as long as only white men are voting.
Land owners, general; don't forget the land owners.
Since hoppy harps so much on intelligence, how about making a college degree a requirement for voting? That way conservatives would never hold power again.
Are "degrees" from nonsense-teaching campuses controlled by conservatives going to count?
I say we yank those accreditations without delay. People are entitled to believe as much superstitious, bigoted nonsense as they wish . . . but not to get college credit for it.
Are you telling me my credits from taking assorted night classes at the Knoxville, Tennessee School of Faith Healing aren't going to count?
I think wingnuts and clingers are going to be surprised by what the culture war's winners are going to be willing to do with their victory.
Gun nuts . . . anti-abortion absolutists . . . religious kooks . . . nonsense-teaching schools . . . they may find themselves getting kicked around for sport.
(No hunting on public lands . . . ample public funding of abortions . . . withdrawal of most special privileges for superstitious bigots . . . withdrawal of accreditation and funding . . . the possibilities are ample, and beautiful.)
No hunting would make fatalities *rise*. You're more likely to be killed by a deer than by a hunting accident.
There likely are ways to control a deer population, where warranted, that would not involve enabling a bunch of half-educated, drunken, downscale amateurs to run around firing guns on public property.
Who says College Degrees are related to Intelligence. I only got one because it was required for Med School.
To what is right-wingers' random capitalization related?
Probably just to tick you off, since it's clear to all by now that informal writing, however perfectly adequately communicative, is something up with which you do not put.
Random capitalization does not constitute informal writing.
How does a "legal" blog attract so many dumb conservatives? Are there no smart conservatives out there?
I find opportunistic capitalization to be just another tool in the box to impart meaning to the reader -- e.g., Artie has vowed to get a life Real Soon Now.
It's a shame that such a clearly enlightened being as yourself has made themselves such a pointless slave to form.
yOUR nOT sMART
“Republicans don’t care about voters!” say facetious folk who have spent six years trying to reverse an election, and now forbid voters a choice.
“Oh Lord, send Ceres, of The Expanse fame, to smear this world. You don’t have to listen to the promise you made after Noah, Job was partly about how you don’t have to follow your own rules, and nobody will be around to call you on it anyway.”
Tu quoque and what about are both logical fallacies. Even when they're accurate, which in this case they're not.
Depends how they are used. If you say "You shouldn't vote for A because they do X", my saying "Your side also does X" doesn't make what A did any less worse, but it *does* negate it as a reason to vote for your side over A.
But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s trying to deflect from GOP hostility to democratic elections by claiming the Dems are hostile to them too. And even if he’s right on the facts, which I don’t think he is, just because Dems do it doesn’t excuse Republicans.
Next time you’re stopped for speeding try telling the nice officer that everyone else was speeding too and let us know how it works out.
I've been stopped for speeding zero times, thank you very much. Because usually everyone else *is* going as fast or faster even if I'm slightly over the limit.
Look at the Wisconsin congressional districts. Gerrymandered? Sure. But then look at the Illinois congressional districts drawn by Democrats. They make the Republican gerrymanderers look like amateurs.
No, what Democrats do doesn't excuse Republicans, or vice versa. But in the end you're probably going to vote for one or the other. In *that* context the comparative difference is relevant.
It's also really weird that you're taking this stance in this particular case, since it means you're giving up on the (IMO rather strong) argument that other judges have done the same thing this judge has done.
"So are the grounds for impeachment"
That's less clear. Regardless, the legislature can impeach for whatever reason it wants really. If it defines an action as corrupt, those are grounds. That's how representative democracy works.
The issue is, the GOP has a majority in both the House and Senate it WI.
Should Democrats in advanced states impeach and convict a few clinger judges, or terminate a few Federalist Society law professors, to demonstrate the foolishness (or wisdom) of this approach?
Exactly right. When Thomas Jefferson took office he wanted Congress to impeach all the John Adams judges. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed.
The good part of this is that we all know who will be standing atop the hill after the culture war's dust settles. And who will be at the feet of the victors, seeking leniency and undeserved favors.
All that is legal is legitimate is how republics die.
Hitler was very careful to pass the Enabling Act in a completely legal fashion. Same with the acts combining the offices of President and Chancellor and creating the office of Fuehrer.
Conservatives contemplating or conducting last-gasp measures as the culture war proceeds predictably should be informed that a culture war's winners are not obligated to be magnanimous toward the losers -- especially not roundly bigoted, superstitious, belligerently ignorant, stale-thinking culture war casualties.
Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit. In their unfettered discretion, increasingly.
LOL, Meat.
Remember, your Betters are watching.
And, taking notes.
Conservatives deserve every bit of the stomping they have taken from the liberal-libertarian mainstream for decades . . . and are going to continue to take, the rants and whimpers offered daily by a bunch of disaffected fringe law professors and their bigoted, delusional, right-wing fans.
Try to establish as many safe spaces as you can while you still can, clingers. They won't last forever, but they will provide some respite as you approach replacement.
I would prefer a repeat stomping of Trump, to facetiously denying him a spot on a ticket, while barfing out the other side of their mouth how dare they thwart voters, that's evil, yo!
I think better Americans are going to continue to stomp both . . . Trump and the worthless losers and despicable bigots who support him.
The fact that so many women, including so called "Republican" women have come out in droves in 2020 and 2022 to vote for Democrats because of abortion, is not evidence of the moral rightness of the pro-death position, but is evidence for why women should have never been given the vote in the first place.
Also consider that there was no global climate warming change before women started to vote.
A decent person associated with this blog would say something about the incessant bigoted, obnoxious comments such as hoppy's misogynistic spew, and/or about the deplorable commenters this blog cultivates as a target audience.
Any worthwhile person, by now, would have said something.
Then we have the Volokh Conspirators . . .
That they drag their employers into this flaming shitstorm compounds the cowardice and lack of character and judgment.
Give me a minute, dammit, I just woke up.
To the op, ok, so presumably you masters of the universe, properly lording over women in your world, deny women abortions. Well, Lords, why not deny your penii to begin with? Or rejoice in government programs to help poor women with kids that individual Lords have abandoned?
The "poor women with kids" are called SLUTS and should be treated as such.
It used to be that an unmarried woman who got pregnant was on her own, and now with the ability to legally murder her child should she so chose, she ought to be. She agreed to all of the fun stuff, without waiting for the ring, and now she should be willing to pay the price for it.
Let's bring back poor farms.
These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your stale, ugly, bigoted conservative thinking is doomed in modern America.
You guys get to whine and whimper about it, and prance about in your unconvincing libertarian drag, at your blog as much as you like, though.
Are there no prisons? Are there no (non-union) workhouses? Dr. Ed 2 exceeds the worst of Ebenezer Scrooge and throws "sluts!" on top.
A 76% Black illegitimacy rate is why we need so many prisons...
This one is so good I’m saving it for posterity. You are truly a garbage person
That's just everyday right-wing ranting at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Men today are treated worse than women were in the 1950s.
Come on; it doesn't remotely compare to his "sex workers deserve to be murdered."
I'll give you this much, "Coach" Sandusky
no woman ever needed an abortion because of you.
Alot of young men needed Psychiatric treatment for the rest of their lives (and thats just the players you didn't molest)
and maybe "Replacement" isn't so bad after all,
I mean "45" did "Replace" Barry Hussein
Frank
But I thought you supported abortion because of all the black fetuses being aborted. Make up your mind.
I do, I mean I don't, but it's in their nature to destroy themselves (HT T-800 Terminator)
The mistake was in not tying abortion to a male issue, i.e. child support. What the GOP fails to understand is that were there a ban on that proposed, MALE voters would come out in hordes.
Or dedicate some of that reproductive freedom money the left is always talking about to finally develop a contraceptive pill for MEN. Feminists like to talk about disparties in everything so why is it that it has been 70 years since "the pill" was introduced but there is still zero, zilch, nothing similar for men? How 'bout them apples?
Maybe because men don't face the medical complications of pregnancy and avoid most of the social consequences? They are at risk for STDs but resist using condoms, and you think they're going to accept even the mildest side effects of a hormonal contraceptive that is able to stop millions of sperm?
This is the lamest excuse ever and completely dismisses that men also want to make reproductive decisions. Also, it is completely unsupported by the studies that suggest overwhelmingly that YES men really want a form of oral contraceptive. One recent study suggested up to 80% of men would take it.
1. wear a condom
2. get a vasectomy
3. abstain from sexual intercourse with women
It's still the case that stopping millions of sperm is way harder than stopping the occasional ovum, and (ignoring the side effects like reduced libido) a woman would still have to take a man's word that he had taken the male contraceptive pill (since it's likely that more than 80% of men would say they took it).
How is that different than the current role-reversed status quo?
Why?
Because women still bear the greater burden in unwanted pregnancy, whining about child support notwithstanding? It is similar, and everyone should hesitate to have sex with someone they can't trust (over STDs if not pregnancy).
Because the 80% who do take it will presumably truthfully say so, and there are men who sneak condoms off after agreeing to wear them? Because some men want to get a woman pregnant when she doesn't want to despite the prospect of paying child support?
Amen to that.
Ah, that high of a baseline wasn't clear at all from your first comment. Sorta takes most of the punch out of it, though.
I'd truthfully love to see those stats against those of women wanting to get pregnant and deceiving a man into providing the sperm. Gut check says the latter would roundly outweigh the former.
80% was taken directly from the comment I was responding to. I suppose getting the context would be difficult if you've muted the commenter I was replying to.
Which number is higher doesn't affect my point, as long as the former is nonzero.
You raise an interesting point -- the pill works by convincing a woman's body that she is already pregnant, and hence not to release an egg. Not mentioned is what this is doing to women psychologically.
Why don't you mansplain it to us?
David Nieporent is a girly man.
What do you think the reason is?
“ the pro-death position”
You literally post about killing people you hate all the time.
Oh no the republicans finally figure out when you have political power sometimes you need to actually use it. Sounds the alarm!
But, of course, the "bad guy" here isn't the judge who got elected basically on a campaign promise to abuse the bench to overturn election maps to rig it for their party. That guy is a demonkrat so gets the pass.
File another one under clown world.
In Wisconsin, fairly drawn maps would not create a Democratic majority, but would rather decrease the control the Republicans have.
Why should either side draw maps "fairly"?
Maps should not be drawn for either party, but rather to give the voters the most choice.
Because a representative democratic body like a legislature should actually be representative of the people in the polity?
During the Wisconsin redistricting litigation, the Democrats paid an expert to draw the most favorable to Democrats map possible within legal limits.
It still disproportionately elected Republicans.
Fair or not fair, a map that puts Democrats in control of the Wisconsin legislature isn't in the cards. Democrats are very inefficiently distributed in Wisconsin.
Yeah . . . Democrats seem to congregate in the economically adequate, properly educated, less bigoted, more modern, reasoning communities.
In the recent litigation, the conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court would only consider maps that adhered to a "least change" standard, so they couldn't get far from the Republican gerrymander. Still, the WI Supreme Court accepted the governor's map only to be overruled by the federal Supreme Court.
Be more imaginative. Brett.
Why should not the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that the only “fair” way of organising the election of the state legislature (and federal House representation) is to use some form of proportional representation ? It's a common refrain from liberals - incuding here - that ANY system that is to the disadvantage of Democrats in yielding a disproprotionately Republican delegation is ipso facto "unfair". See for example LTG below. Why would a liberal judge disagree ?
I’m sure the computer geeks could advise on which method, and size of multi-member districts, would guarantee a Democrat majority in each state chamber.
This is a straight out political fight between two elected political branches - the legislature, controlled by the Rs, and the judiciary, controlled by the Ds. One side will do ANYTHING to win. And it ain't the Rs. Hence they will cave in this little skirmish, and then they will lose their majority.
Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering isn’t unfair because it “disadvantages democrats” it’s unfair because it doesn’t produce legislative bodies that accurately reflect what the voters of the state want. It’s also unfair to gerrymander republicans in Maryland and Illinois and cut them out the of the process more than the state’s partisan make up would suggest.
Wisconsin is a particularly egregious example because not only does it not reflect the partisan make up of the state it gives a supermajority to a party that doesn’t even consistently have majority support in the state.
It has a nothing to do with “disadvantaging democrats” and everything to do with systems that give one party disproportionate power or even entrench one party in power despite being a minority party will always be unfair no matter which parties are involved.
Thread-winner for dumbest comment. While the Republicans are doing (or threatening to do) anything to cling to its gerrymandered advantage, you're bitching and moaning and whining about what meanies those darn Democrats are.
Jaw-dropping, and mind-blowing, stupidity.
Except we've seen this movie before - in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. When the Democrat judges get a majority on the state supreme court they parley the word "fair" into a superpower to override the state legislature at will. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court added the nice touch of sonorously setting out the rules for achieving "fairness" in districting, and then oops, finding that they didn't do quite enough for the Dems, and so broke their own invented rules to give the Dems a couple more House seats.
It's not like there's anything new going on here. This is I Love Lucy rerun for the umpteenth time. We know what's going to happen. The judge in question has already told us what's going to happen. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is going to area bomb the Republican legislature, just like their pals in North Carolina and Pennsylvania did. The only question is whether the Republican legislature is going to get its retaliation in first.
And the answer, as we all know, is that it won't. A few souls will mutter about playing hard ball, and then they will timidly run away and hope the Big Bad Wolf won't eat them. But it will.
Once again you yell about Democrat judges but don’t actually discuss the actual effects of the partisan gerrymander.
Sometimes something a judge says is unfair, is actually against the state or federal Constitution.
As Brett explained, the pattern of human occupation is the main instrument of the "gerrymander" - ie it is a natural consequence of geography.
If the "mischief" is that the Rs score more districts than the Ds, per vote that they get, that is not a complaint about gerrymandering it is a complaint that the system is not PR.
And we are not required to like PR.
Now there certainly are gerrymanders in the real sense - ie where geography is more or less irrelevant and the political line drawing produces the skewed result. I am opposed to that. But that does not mean that I favor replacing the legislature's gerrymander with the court's gerrymander.
I don't support "independent" commissions - since that inevitably devolves to a fight over stacking the commission. I prefer either an algorithm, or a bidding war.
By algorithm I mean something like "any candidate map has to have equal numbers of voters - within some maximum tolerance level; and the map with the shortest aggregate boundary wins." ie something that requires no human judgement at all. For with judgement comes discretion and with discretion comes politics. (We have done this before with the philosophy of law.)
But at present the ball is legally with the legislature, so I would not favor the courts stepping in and imposing my solution. It's more important that the courts be courts and not superlegislatures than that "gerrymandering" be solved.
So if it's forced by geography, Republicans can safely drop all objections to non-partisan maps, because they'll win their majority no matter what map is adopted. And they wasted a lot of taxpayer money on hiring outside mapmakers with no transparency at all, because it would always come out the same because of "the pattern of human occupation".
But the Princeton Gerrymandering Project which does non-partisan analysis disagrees with you; even the governor's proposed maps which were constrained by a "least change" requirement from the extreme gerrymander would not have produced a Senate two-thirds majority for Republicans, only a bare majority.
the Princeton Gerrymandering Project which does non-partisan analysis
Good one 🙂
I notice you couldn't rebut it.
It's funded by Eric Schmidt and Jim Simons. That makes it a hair less bipartisan than the NYT.
Still not a rebuttal. Show us a map the Princeton Gerrymandering Project scored in a partisan way.
"fair" only ever seems to mean giving the left an unfair edge in everything.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
What’s unfair about a state that has a relatively even partisan split having a legislature that somewhat reflects that instead of one where one party consistently has a supermajority and elections don’t change that?
That's because more people vote for them.
That's because our vestigial clingers are dying off and being replaced by better Americans.
This cannot happen fast enough.
Nah the right call stuff unfair all the time.
Exactly Jimmy – and what the professor fails to understand is that the GOP is only starting to be as ruthless as the Dems have long been.
The left used to be known for its dishonesty, and the right for its stupidity. What has happened relatively recently is that the right is now fully embracing the left's dishonesty.
Sadly, they've retained their stupidity.
What do you think is the best example of “the Dems” doing something comparable to this in, say, the last 10 years?
The obvious case would be Maryland.
Wisconsin republicans threatening to impeach a justice to preserve their gerrymander is the same as Maryland…where a judge struck down a legislative map for extreme partisan gerrymandering and they worked out a compromise with the Republican Governor?
Or maybe it’s comparable to when elected democrats filed briefs in Rucho advocating for the court to strike down the Maryland gerrymander? Or when the Democratic appointees on the court voted to make it so that the gerrymander could be declared illegal?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-congressional-redistricting-map-to-get-maryland-governors-approval
Or maybe it’s comparable to New York where democrats also did not try to remove judges who said they did an illegal gerrymander.
I didn't say it was an equal example, only that it would be the best example. It was a gerrymander that favored Democrats, and the subject of litigation.
First the control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not change from Republican to Democrat, but rather from conservative to liberal. The court election is non-partisan. The conservative justices, with the exception of Brian Hagedorn, have always sided with the Republicans. Justice Hagedorn is a reliable conservative, not a partisan.
The control of district maps is not about who holds the majority. Republicans will hold a majority in fairly drawn non-partisan maps. It is about the size of the Republican majority which will shrink if fair non-partisan maps are drawn. So much of what the Republican said about Justice Protasiewicz is false, she is not looking to give Democrats the majority, just to give the voters a voice.
You're defending a judge who is admitting having decided a case before even hearing it? That;s grounds for disbarment, let alone impeachment.
I would say RICO as well. Anything is now RICO so charge away. If we are going to fill the jails with political prisoners might as well make it equal opportunity.
No, she expressed an opinion on political matters in a campaign. There was no promise of how cases would be decided. Same thing Republican-aligned candidates for Supreme Court have done for decades.
"expressing a political opinion" is now potentially criminal activity here in the people's banana republic. Probably should have stood up for those who were peacefully protesting on January 6th a little bit more if the underlying effect of criminalizing speech really concerned you. Oh well, precedent set. Now it is time to start charging the real commies. Can start with her.
Those who did not violently invade the Capitol on January 6th? They're just fine. Those who brought weapons and attacked Capitol and DC police? Not First Amendment protected.
Justice Protasiewicz expressed an opinion in a campaign this is common practice and in no way an admission of how the case will be decided. How many Supreme Court nominee said that Roe v Wade was settled law but then decided to overturn Roe. You cannot hold a judges and justices to what they say as they can change their minds.
Please review my comment above.
The hell you can't -- impeach the delta charlie!
Lets be honest, this is a power struggle between a court and a legislature.
In our system of government any power struggle, using constitutional means, the legislature if sufficiently united will win.
That is the way the system is designed.
The legislature believes the court doesn't have the power to take the drawing of legislative maps from the legislature. The legislature has the power to make that stick.
At least until the next election.
I actually don’t think the legislature can make this stick in the long run. Right now there is no way even a significant majority of Wisconsinites can dislodge the Republican Party from power or even a simply prevent a supermajority. That’s unsustainable in a polity where a significant majority of people are committed to liberal democracy. Eventually some combination of of other state institutions or federal institutions will end it. Maybe not in the short and medium terms but in the long run the legislature will lose.
Wisconsin Republicans will, like all Republicans eventually lose to their betters.
Mostly because they have become unpersuasive and uncompetitive at the modern American marketplace of ideas. Soon enough, they will be relying mostly on the leniency of the victors.
It’s up to the voters, if they think the legislature is in the wrong.
And Wisconsin has ballot initiatives where a direct vote can override the legislature, and take redistricting out of their hands, or change the law on impeaching judges.
There is no initiative process in Wisconsin. A statewide referendum has to originate with the state legislature. Counties and smaller can submit a non-binding referendum to the voters; 30+ counties have passed such on the non-partisan redistricting question, with many others passing resolutions. Voters could recall legislators, but it would just be an election in the same gerrymandered district.
Yes. You’re right. That’s part of the reason why Janet won the election. The state overall is sick of the legislature that they actually can’t change the composition of through voting and want other officials to do something about it.
The issue here is that under the current structure it is not up to the voters.
The system was designed assuming that all involved have some concern for truth, justice, and the good of their country, and in particular would not charge innocent people with bogus crimes just because doing so provides a means to obtaining power.
The system was designed because the Framers were sick of power-hungry tyrants and expected the legislators of an American state to behave better.
It is heartening that even in the Wisconsin Republican Party there are still a few people who regard their oath of office as something to worry about, and for whom the will to power does not justify charging innocent people with bogus crimes.
Or maybe they are motivated by a fear of public opinion, which would cost Republicans in statewide elections even if they were to hold onto their legislative majorities.
The state house impeaches. The justice is suspended. She resigns. The governor reappoints her.
Both teams play hardball.