Chief Justice Travesty in Wisconsin
The real travesty in the Chief Justice referendum was the lack of context presented to the public. We heard a lot about partisan attacks on Shirley, we heard a lot about perception problems,we heard a lot about the need for collegiality, and we heard a lot about how this was not about Justice Abrahamson. But if you listen to the Committee hearings you may discover that Justice Abrahamson was the target. You can listen to Judicial Committee Hearings on Wisconsin Eye.
Whether you agree or not on the substance of the bill is rather insignificant.What is significant however, is the details regarding implementation, namely its effective date.
The controversy over the merits of the bill could be debated. The change to the bills effective date cannot.Instead of the law changing in 2019 as originally discussed, the Republican legislature changed the effective date to "upon the bills passage". That is, if the Amendment does pass, it would take effect immediately. And the consequences of this outcome are not inconsequential. As Democratic Senator Risser noted a change would "add more divisiveness to the court". Evan Goynke said it would "interrupt the entire judicial system" in Wisconsin, and Dana Wachs said it raises "Substantive Due Process Issues".
Senator Risser questioned former Chief Judge John Wilcox about increasing uncertainty on the court. Risser asked "isn't it better to have adverse certainty than uncertainty"? Former Chief Judge and adversary to Justice Abrahmason, John Wilcox said "no". Failing to elaborate as to why, Wilcox went back to talking points of "collegiality" and because "I think it's a good idea", and "20 states' do it" one way, and on and on....Total echo chamber from bill supporters on Chief Justice injustice.
During the judicial committee hearings, Republicans Tiffiany and Hutton were lock step in lunacy, Both relied on canned answers to simple questions, and non-answers to any remark or question not previously rehearsed. They held steady to the Wilcox script.
They too cited dubious reasons such as collegiality" and "Wisconsin is only one of five states",and being only one of five states is bad, and twenty states is better than 8, is better than 5, but not on Sundays ,or not when the Brewers are playing at home, yada, yada, yada...
But seriously, the fact that the Republican legislature changed the laws effective date clearly indicates the Amendment was about Shirley. Not a good sign for Wisconsin.
Whether you agree or not on the substance of the bill is rather insignificant.What is significant however, is the details regarding implementation, namely its effective date.
The controversy over the merits of the bill could be debated. The change to the bills effective date cannot.Instead of the law changing in 2019 as originally discussed, the Republican legislature changed the effective date to "upon the bills passage". That is, if the Amendment does pass, it would take effect immediately. And the consequences of this outcome are not inconsequential. As Democratic Senator Risser noted a change would "add more divisiveness to the court". Evan Goynke said it would "interrupt the entire judicial system" in Wisconsin, and Dana Wachs said it raises "Substantive Due Process Issues".
Senator Risser questioned former Chief Judge John Wilcox about increasing uncertainty on the court. Risser asked "isn't it better to have adverse certainty than uncertainty"? Former Chief Judge and adversary to Justice Abrahmason, John Wilcox said "no". Failing to elaborate as to why, Wilcox went back to talking points of "collegiality" and because "I think it's a good idea", and "20 states' do it" one way, and on and on....Total echo chamber from bill supporters on Chief Justice injustice.
During the judicial committee hearings, Republicans Tiffiany and Hutton were lock step in lunacy, Both relied on canned answers to simple questions, and non-answers to any remark or question not previously rehearsed. They held steady to the Wilcox script.
They too cited dubious reasons such as collegiality" and "Wisconsin is only one of five states",and being only one of five states is bad, and twenty states is better than 8, is better than 5, but not on Sundays ,or not when the Brewers are playing at home, yada, yada, yada...
But seriously, the fact that the Republican legislature changed the laws effective date clearly indicates the Amendment was about Shirley. Not a good sign for Wisconsin.
Comments
Post a Comment