Justice N. Patrick Crooks said: "I think it's not only sad, it's unfortunate. I won't give you my view of the merits of that lawsuit, but I will tell you I think it's something that should not have been done.
We've become a little bit of a laughingstock, or at least she has."
In the interview, Crooks said he was considering seeking the position of chief justice himself after some of his colleagues talked to him about it. He declined to name them. The 76-year-old justice also held out the possibility of running for re-election next year, despite suggesting to his colleagues last year that he would not seek another 10-year term.
In case you've forgotten, Abrahamson has been chief justice for a long time under the old seniority rule, a part of the Wisconsin state constitution which the voters amended. Now, the justices are to vote to select the chief, and Crooks seems to be positioning himself for selection — and for reelection if he wants to run again. Calling Abrahamson "a laughingstock" is awfully harsh, even if it's what he genuinely thinks (as opposed to what's politically opportune). If the idea is to restore the
dignity of the court, it's a bit strange. But perhaps the unnamed colleagues who've talked to him include Abrahamson:
Crooks distanced himself from Abrahamson, saying he had a "very different" judicial philosophy than her. Regardless, he argued the decision on who should lead the court should be about who is best able to bring members of the court together, not a "philosophical tug of war." He said he felt he could serve that function.
"I view the job of chief justices I think very differently than Justice Abrahamson does," he said. "I think that the chief justice is a first among equals. I think the approach that's appropriate is that you're a team player and you try to get everyone involved in the team."
If I were in Justice Abrahamson's position masterminding the coming election, that's exactly what I would advise him to say.
And by the way, call me "a bit of a laughingstock" so it won't look like I'm colluding with you.
Posts
20 comments:
Crooks is the most political animal on the court and will do or say ANYTHING to gain power. He is unworthy of being Chief. But, the court is so buffoonish, I see no one of integrity to lead this band of bunglers.
76?
Some old justices on the WSC
76 and running next year to begin another 10-year term the following August. So, he's talking about being a justice until he is 87 and carrying the chief justice responsibilities as well.
I have no problem if his colleagues select him as chief. They can now always pick someone else two years later.
Shirley ran roughshod for years as chief, never having to build consensus or earn the respect of her colleagues, as long as 1) she won reelection, and 2) the seniority rule did not change.
The rule changed and now she has to gain the votes of her fellow justices to keep the chief's headdress. Had she been better at her job, she'd be a shoo-in for reelection. But she ran the place in a way that many of the others did not like. Now it's time to face the new reality.
Hope it's not Crooks. I want Roggensack.
He can probably handle another 11 years. The headline says he is a swinger at that age.
In Georgia the older Justices always retire a year or two before the end of their last term. Then the Governor can appoint a successor who runs later as an incumbent. And the Governor appoints a successor to the trial Judgeship he just appointed to the high court, and then the Governor appoints a successor DA to that office, and the Judicial system rolls along.
Strife on the Court is not new. During the 1999 Supreme Court election, Justice Crooks joined with three other justices (Justice Bablitch, Justice Steinmetz, and Justice Wilcox) in supporting Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's opponent, Sharren Rose. More here. (Remember the aerobics-in-the-conference-room kerfuffle?)
In that race, Justices Bradley and Prosser supported the reelection of the Chief.
The math certainly isn't working well for Shirley - she probably was hoping for a Democrat Governor who could appoint her successorif she chose to retire before the end of her term & having her BFF become Chief Justice by virtue of seniority, thus having some semblance of continuing her legacy.
And maybe another President Clinton would have meant another crack at the Supreme Court(if it wasn't for that Ruth Bader Ginsburg......., but the sun is setting, so no chance of that now.
"Ann Althouse said...
76 and running next year to begin another 10-year term the following August. So, he's talking about being a justice until he is 87 and carrying the chief justice responsibilities as well."
Not much different than Abrahammson.
I am 62 and I can't imagine wanting to still work when I am 75 UNLESS I amd broke and really need the money
Notice how excruciating it is for Ann to ever admit that a liberal justice is indeed a laughingstock. It just pains her so badly. It's like the worst thing ever.
Ann - just go buy yourself another Apple product.
This looks like it's filed under "News" rather than opinion.
It's sad what we call news these days. "lashed out"?
Ugh.
Surely, this lawsuit has no merit....
Tony Kennedy: The Wisconsin Version.
"alan markus said...
The math certainly isn't working well for Shirley - she probably was hoping for a Democrat Governor who could appoint her successorif she chose to retire before the end of her term"
No, she was hoping to become the longest sitting Chief Justice in WI history. If not for this amendment, and assuming she didn't croak, she would have been. She will now be #2. Telling that in her suit she said if not for being the chief she would not have run for re-election. So she should quit the second this is resolved. My guess is she will stick around just to be a pain in the ass.
"And by the way, call me "a bit of a laughingstock" so it won't look like I'm colluding with you."
cyn·i·cal
ˈsinək(ə)l/
adjective
1.
believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
Is it cynical when the belief is accurate? Anyway, great punch line, Althouse.
Blogger mccullough said...
76?
Some old justices on the WSC
This too is what Democracy looks like. Old Democracy is a bit of a shape shifter.
AJ Lynch said...
I am 62 and I can't imagine wanting to still work when I am 75 UNLESS I amd broke and really need the money
Being a judge can be Work. Or it can be Work-Work. Depends entirely on the "worker."
Ann, considering some of the rulings we've had out of various courts recently we might be better off if more judges were old enough to nap during trials.
And by the way, call me "a bit of a laughingstock" so it won't look like I'm colluding with you.
Our level of faith in the integrity of these high level judges on the left and 'center-left' is completely gone.
But I don't believe the statement although I share it's cynicism.
Shirley is a true laughing stock. I can't imagine she has enough self awareness to see it, or to even bounce it around a bit.
Post a Comment