I considered putting this in FQ because I’m hoping for a reasonably objective discussion, but it’s inherently political so I chose this forum.
Short version: Conservative justices held the majority on the court for years and ran it the way they liked. Liberal justices recently took the majority and have been changing things. The Chief, who used to be in the conservative majority but is now in the minority, is objecting strenuously to the majority’s changes and insists the liberals don’t have any authority; the liberals say everything they’re doing is according to law and precedent and the conservative Chief is just freaking out because she doesn’t like being on the receiving end.
Who’s right?
Obviously modern American conservatives are by and large hypocrites and assholes who exercise power freely when they hold it and bellyache about unfairness when they don’t (and liberals stupidly play the game on those terms). But I’m willing to allow that the Chief might have a legal point and is indeed being run over roughshod by an opportunistic opposition. Probably not, but maybe.
I’ll be real interested in this one. A quick read implies that the CJ is taking a “but that’s not how we’ve always done it!” stance, as opposed to the liberal “yeah, but the law says this…” approach.
Of course that’s an oversimplification, but even if both are true, the latter rules the day.
Hypocrisy is the heart of modern conservatism. It’s always wrong when others do it because it’s part of a plan to destroy America, there’s nothing wrong with conservatives doing it because they’re saving America.
The things the new court is trying to do seem reasonable and prudent to me, particularly the move to redraw the election districts so they don’t unfairly benefit Republican candidates.
Oh, and for a real shitstorm, check out what’s going on in neighboring Michigan.
Wasn’t it in Wisconsin a few years ago that the Republican led legislature basically neutered the powers of the governor after a Democrat was elected to that position? Sounds like payback to me.
The first and largest complaint from “I’m gonna run to the press and whine rather than deal with the reality” Chief Justice Zeigler was that the new majority fired the old state court director (oddly enough a Republican), and hired a new, interim one. From my very brief research, Ch. 70 of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules says: “The director shall be hired by and serve at the pleasure of the supreme court, under the direction of the chief justice”. Seems pretty clear that the new majority were empowered to do what they did. There may be an issue with the exact person they picked, because the appointee was a standing judge and judges are not allowed to hold other non-judicial offices in Wisconsin, but it seems she took a leave and isnt really a judge anymore, but I dont know the facts/rules enough to offer an opinion.
I do think the new liberal majority are being reactionary, heavy-handed and could have handled this entire thing much, much better and more congenially. But the public whining and name-calling by Zeigler is also reactionary, heavy handed, and could be handled better.
My opinion: both sides are acting like children and need to grow the fuck up.
I’m confused over what is law and what is tradition. For example
“It has come to my attention that you have been signing my reserve judge orders without my knowledge or approval,” Ziegler wrote in the email. “You never asked me for permission. You do not have my permission. Stop. These orders are in my name. You have no lawful authority to sign them. If you have signed anything else under my name, please advise immediately.”
Can the director legally do that? Has the director traditionally done that? Had the director traditionally done that at the request of the CJ?
As for the political aspect of this, remember that Republicans threw Democrats out of state legislatures for the crime of being a Democrat, so they shouldn’t whine when the Dems turn the tables when they are in power.
Chapter 70.10 states: “SCR 70.10 Director; assignments. The director of state courts shall have the responsibility and authority regarding the assignment of reserve judges and the interdistrict assignment of active judges at the circuit court level where necessary to the ordered and timely disposition of the business of the court.”
From that, it appears that yes, the director can assign reserve judges. But I’m not sure why the hell the interim director would be signing them as Chief Justice Whiny McTablesTurned. That seems to be the wrong way to go about it.
But, again, very brief research, no real knowledge, and just looking at the statute.
More to the point, tossing out long standing traditions and norms that were key to the civil functioning of government in order to secure short term political gains, has been pretty much exclusively a Republican endeavor.
Conservatives have been running roughshod over liberals now for decades. Liberals keep hand-wringing and hoping congenial debate will become the norm again.
That ship has sailed. If conservatives want a more polite political landscape they can start any time. Until then, liberals need to pushback as hard as they can and at every opportunity they can.
Sure. We can then turn the courts into the same elementary school playground that is current political discourse. What could go wrong with a complete lack of adults in the room.
I think that has long since happened in the courts.
The problem is when one side tries to play nice and the other side continually pranks them there is a clear imbalance. It’s like Lucy yanking the football from Charlie Brown. When will he learn? Should he keep hoping Lucy will all of a sudden play nice as long as he keeps playing by the rules? When do you call Charlie out for being a fool?
I agree, but I wish you hadn’t included the particular sentence that @Crafter_Man quoted, since it opened the door to making this a thread for general conservative-bashing instead of discussion of this particular issue.