Even without seeing that ballot, it's obvious that it could not be an election to the position of chief justice. If Koschnick had won, he would not have been elected chief. We, the people of Wisconsin, voted for a Justice of the Supreme Court. The position of chief was determined by the old seniority rule in the Wisconsin Constitution, which we, the people of Wisconsin, have now amended.
Posts
182 comments:
It's sort of like the old reserve clause in baseball. Each and every justice had the expectation of being chief justice if they held on long enough, so the law can never change.
Maybe there were a lot of write-ins for Chief Justice.
As I stated on 4/8/2015 @ 10:15pm to the illustrious garage mahal on Althouse post on that day.
paminwi said...
Garage you are so full of it. She could ONLY run for the position as a Supreme Court Justice. She could NOT run for Chief Justice. If the other candidate had won against her HE/SHE would NOT been Chief Justice. You can not have 2 people running for the same office but for a different job.
Get a grip - she's going down!
Do you think that I could make the argument to the court that my taxes may not be raised on account of I had only taken my current job with the expectation of taking home a certain amount of money?
tim in vermont - Your first post nailed it.
Who cares? When garage mahal is in "the rage" nothing can stop him.
Poor Shirley. She will be a peon Justice with one miserable vote.
And Bradley will not defend her from Chief Justice Prosser since Bradley wants influence that Prosser will have instead of the old gray mare Abrahamson put out to pasture.
That's the thing about libruls. They think if they rage and thrash about enough people will get scared and acquiesce to them.
Sorry garage, but nobody's scared.
But don't you see? A vote for Shirley was a also a vote to have her continue to wield power as Chief Justice. "Two for the price of one."
And federal courts must take judicial notice of that two-fold vote (as evidenced by her campaign rhetoric) in determining US Constitutional rights.
So, a ruling in favor of Shirley Abrahamson will mean that Hillary Clinton is ineligible to serve under the 22d Amendment, since she has already served two terms.
Suddenly, I'm coming to see the merit in Abrahamson's argument.
Shirley A: "I'm still big, its the constitution that got small."
Remember we got two Clinton's for the price of one in '92 and '96.
Good point.
I'm literally amazed at how the mind of a liberal works. It's a fantasy world constructed where all their "social justice" crap prevails and reality doesn't ever intrude.
When it does, their cognitive dissonance is on full display. Like in this and the other thread.
tim in vermont said...
"It's sort of like the old reserve clause in baseball."
There is a highly acclaimed book on that subject by UW law professor, Brad Snyder called A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood's Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports.
Other than a title what else does the Chief Justice do?
Why is she clinging to power? It surely can't be the $8,000.
The argument is short but doesn't cover all bases.
The election can be for X as chief justice or Y as justice, as X is arguing in effect.
I'm sure this all makes sense to people who are very much into partisan tactical warfare, just like the secret 'public integrity investigations' that aren't ever really exposed to oversight, because subjecting secret investigations and prosecution would somehow be inconsistent with public integrity...
But to a bystander from another state this looks like an after school special about cloud cuckoo land.
There should be a garage mahal tag on these posts because, swear to God, this is some of his funniest stuff on this issue.
Let me add that is she truly would not have run for re-election if she knew wshe would be Chief Justice, she should be expected to resign when she loses this idiotic lawsuit.
"tim in vermont said...
There should be a garage mahal tag on these posts because, swear to God, this is some of his funniest stuff on this issue."
The fact that he posted a link to a PAC ad, claiming it as proof of SA "running for CJ" is "The best of garage." This would require "coordination" between her official campaign and the PAC, what he has been telling us is soooooo illegal and why the John Doe II investigation has merit.
He is that dumb.
She was invested in the office of Chief Justice under the Wisconsin constitution by right of seniority. Her reelection confirmed that right for another 10 years.
Now, in the middle of that term, some in Wisconsin propose to divest her of that right. It isn't even clear that the newly passed amendment empowers them to do that.
She definitely has a case, she may lose that case, but it can't be considered frivolous.
What I can't figure out is, why doesn't she try to maintain some intellectual dignity? Why would a state Supreme Court justice act like a nitwit so publicly?
Paraphrasing commenters favorite dig toward Althouse: and her, a supreme court justice.
I'm certain that when the people see a judge try to game the system as blatently as this, their belief that there is such a thing as the rule of law, and that it is there to protect them, takes another step towards the dumpster. Personally, waste management took my belief to the landfill years ago.
"She was invested in the office of Chief Justice under the Wisconsin constitution by right of seniority. Her reelection confirmed that right for another 10 years."
Take another gawp at the ballot snip Althouse posted. Think about it really, really hard.
Curious George claims Abrahmason didn't run her campaign as Chief Justice? Really.
Her reelect campaign wasn't named ‘Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson Reelection Committee’. Her campaign advertising didn't end with the tagline Wisconsin's Chief
Of course CG is a relentless Walker bootlicker. He'll happily lie for his hero. Yes sir!
As a non-lawyer (I don't even play one on TV) this looks farcical. The ballot does not say Chief Justice as it could not (as other pointed out). You are not elected to that position. The fact that she uses that verbiage in her ads is neither here nor there. The fact that she is using her own ads as weight in her case is laughable. The fact that she went federal with it is even more laughable.
Her one real valid position does not appear to be one she takes anywhere and that is what was the expectation of those voting on the amendment? Would it take immediate affect or take affect for the next opportunity to fill the position? I can see the validity of the argument that as she was already filling that position and had been re-elected again, the change should take affect at the next opportunity meaning when she steps down and it is time for a new chief. I don't see anywhere where that argument comes up.
What poor form for a judge and even more poor form for the chief justice.
Odd that no one has mentioned that the voters of Wisconsin have elected and reelected this dolt for what, thirty years???
If she is not sanctioned by the federal court, there is no justice! No justice, no peace!
This is what democracy looks like!
Left Bank of the Charles said...Now, in the middle of that term, some in Wisconsin propose to divest her of that right. It isn't even clear that the newly passed amendment empowers them to do that.
No. Your'e asserting that she has an ownerhip interest in that particular job. If that's true then her interest couldn't be harmed without due process and just compensation. If that was the actual law of the land I think the admendment process itself would meet the definition of due process, but in any case that's not how Courts usually frame issues of ownership right vis a vis laws. If you build an asbestos factory under one set of laws and the laws change in a way that makes your factory worthless whom can you sue to get your investment back? As long as we're not talking about criminal law the courts don't usually have a problem with ex post facto rules harming an individual's financial interests--the attitude is usually "too bad, the law changed." This is especially the case when the individual could have/should have anticipated that hte law might change--it's not as though Abrahamson didn't know (when she was deciding to run) that the constitutional amendment might pass, so I doubt a court will give much weight to her claim the she wouldn't have run had she known the rules would change (she should have anticipated that they might).
Remember, under this logic (???), not only does Abrahamson have a cause of action, but Bradley does also. I understand she is second in seniority. Obviously, when she won on 10-year term Tuesday it was because she was running as chief judge in waiting. Therefore, no change in the law can take place until 2025.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
--it's not as though Abrahamson didn't know (when she was deciding to run) that the constitutional amendment might pass, so I doubt a court will give much weight to her claim the she wouldn't have run had she known the rules would change (she should have anticipated that they might).
Abrahamson was last elected in 2009, so before the amendment process was started. But of course she should have known that the amendment process existed and assessed the risk accordingly.
some in Wisconsin propose to divest her of that right.
I'm sorry, but when "some" in a state decide to show up and vote in an election where all eligible voters are welcome and they get a majority, isn't that sort of what democracy looks like?
That's like saying "just because some Americans wanted Obama to be president." Factually true but meaningless rhetoric.
Try again.
Using Obamalogic, you don't just count the votes she received, you must ALSO count the people who did not vote at all as part of her mandate to serve as chief justice.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
She was invested in the office of Chief Justice under the Wisconsin constitution by right of seniority. Her reelection confirmed that right for another 10 years.
The way the constitution had been stated that the justice with the most seniority was the chief. It did not specify a term. The amended constitution changes that. Thus, as soon as the amendment's vote count is official she stops being chief, even before anyone else is voted into the position.
The fact that she ( and at the time everyone else ) expected her to retain the position for ten years does not change that.
Garage, you're right about how Abrahamson "campaigned." Very similar to how all judicial-election incumbents run. As "Justice So-and-so." Or as "Chief Justice So-and-so."
But really, man. She could not run FOR the position of Chief Justice. And she didn't. She was on the ballot as a Justice of the Supreme Court. And that is how she was elected.
I might not grind on this, if it were anybody but you. But you are such a relentless trashtalking asshole, constantly whining about GOP supposed GOP corruption, criminality and thuggery. I want to rub your fucking nose in this one.
They stole My PRECIOUSSSSSSSSS, those filthy hobbitsssssssss.
The amended constitution changes that. Thus, as soon as the amendment's vote count is official she stops being chief, even before anyone else is voted into the position.
There is nothing in the amendment, and nothing in the referendum question that mentioned anything about Abrahamson or removing her as Chief Justice. Nothing. She has already been selected Chief Justice. There is no precedent where a sitting state Chief Justice has been relieved of their duties. Why would she be removed? Because frothing wingnuts don't like her?
garage mahal said...
Curious George claims Abrahmason didn't run her campaign as Chief Justice? Really.
Hahaha the ad says "Supreme Court Justice Vote April 17."
Failure. Your permanet state of being.
You can't apply logic to democrats. They are communists and truth is independent of facts. Reason is a tool of the bourgeoisie to thwart the revolution.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Abrahamson was last elected in 2009, so before the amendment process was started.
Thanks, sorry for muddling that; but you're correct that the point stands that her position is subject to alteration by the voters and in taking the position she has to be aware of the possibility that voters might so alter it.
"garage mahal said...
She has already been selected Chief Justice. "
She wasn't selected Corky. She became Chief because the constitution said so. And now it says there will be a vote.
If she had campaigned as Chief Justice For Life would that make a difference?
Because frothing wingnuts don't like her?
Well, when "frothing wingnuts" win an election, that's what democracy looks like!
You see, laws don't change because a bunch of greedy self-motivated government workers go down to the capitol and sing and harass lawmakers trying to do their job. Laws change because of elections, and if the majority has decided this, how does that make them "wingnuts"? If you are so out of step with the electorate garage, that makes you the "wingnut."
She wasn't selected Corky. She became Chief because the constitution said so. And now it says there will be a vote.
So the Constitution selected her as Chief Justice.
It's hard to tell if you are just a relentless bootlicker for the party or if you are just a really dense person. Always 50/50 with you.
Tell us again about the flee-baggers garage! Tell us how they were doing the work of true democracy by thwarting the will of the electorate.
You guys sure seem to have a hard time beating people so out of step with the people.
I'm going to run for office as dog catcher and tell everyone I'm really running to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And then sue in federal court if I don't get to be Chief Justice.
garage mahal said...
There is nothing in the amendment, and nothing in the referendum question that mentioned anything about Abrahamson or removing her as Chief Justice. Nothing. She has already been selected Chief Justice. There is no precedent where a sitting state Chief Justice has been relieved of their duties. Why would she be removed? Because frothing wingnuts don't like her?
Once the amendment passes she has no more claim on the title of chief justice than I do. There was no term of office. Once the new amendment is in effect there is no way for anyone to be the chief justice except by being elected by the other justices.
Wing Nut: Person out of the mainstream. Out on the very "wing" of the body politic.
Who is the "Wing nut" here garage? If your position is so mainstream, center of the Wisconsin road, why don't you guys steamroll every election, then you guys get to decide these things. You can't because you are a "wing nut" and the voters of Wisconsin don't take your cause seriously.
You see, laws don't change because a bunch of blah blah blah
Show me the text of the law that removes Abrahamson as sitting Chief Justice. Grab the text and bring it here. I'll wait.
If you are so out of step with the electorate garage, that makes you the "wingnut."
rightwingers are wingnuts.
Leftwingers are moonbats.
This is one of those threads that makes me think garage mahal is another performance artist. Between my own inability to believe that he believes his arguments and his consistent practice of ignoring substantive responses in favor of taunting the taunters, I can't think of any other possibility.
garage mahal said... [hush][hide comment]
The amended constitution changes that. Thus, as soon as the amendment's vote count is official she stops being chief, even before anyone else is voted into the position.
There is nothing in the amendment, and nothing in the referendum question that mentioned anything about Abrahamson or removing her as Chief Justice. Nothing. She has already been selected Chief Justice. There is no precedent where a sitting state Chief Justice has been relieved of their duties. Why would she be removed? Because frothing wingnuts don't like her?
4/10/15, 12:50 PM
Though garage can't be counted on to put forth a reasonable argument, I think he does have one here.
Does the amendment include language to the effect of when it becomes "the law of the land"? Is there anything in it to indicate if it were to take effect immediately or at the next opportunity? That [i think] is the question. Everything else if fog meant to obscure. What was the actual wording and (secondarily) the intent? Was it supposed to take immediate affect and immediately cause a new chief justice selection or at the next opportunity (i.e. current occupant no longer in that position)?
She has already been selected Chief Justice
By who?
No one selected her as Chief Justice. She assumed the role as Chief Justice because the constitution said she should. The constitution no longer says that.
Show me the text of the law that removes Abrahamson as sitting Chief Justice.
Delicious... delicious.
The text and review are as follows:
Ballot title
The official ballot text was as follows:[12]
“ Question 1: "Election of chief justice. Shall section 4 (2) of article VII of the constitution be amended to direct that a chief justice of the supreme court shall be elected for a two-year term by a majority of the justices then serving on the court?"[8] ”
Ballot summary
The official explanation statement was as follows:[13]
“ The Wisconsin constitution currently provides that the chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is its longest-serving member. The proposed constitutional amendment would instead select the chief justice through an election by a majority of the justices then serving on the Court.
A “yes” vote on this question would mean that the chief justice shall be elected for a term of two years by a majority of the justices then serving on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The justice who is elected may decline to serve as chief justice or resign the position, but still continue to serve as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
A “no” vote would mean that the longest-serving member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court serves as chief justice of the Court. The justice designated as chief justice may decline to serve as chief justice or resign the position, but still continue to serve as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[8]
None of that makes it clear when it was to be effective and what was to happen with the current [in progress] term. I can understand the ambiguity on how to handle the transition to the new process.
Is there any precedence with other amendments that changed/effected in role persons?
Ann, how do you think this would be decided at the state level, if they had been allowed to decide it?
None of that makes it clear when it was to be effective and what was to happen with the current [in progress] term.
Sure it does. It takes effect immediately. There is no Chief Justice until one is elected.
a chief justice of the supreme court shall be elected for a two-year term by a majority of the justices then serving on the court?"[8] ”
That's what the constitution now says. There is no provision in the constitution for a holdover.
Todd said...
None of that makes it clear when it was to be effective and what was to happen with the current [in progress] term. I can understand the ambiguity on how to handle the transition to the new process.
If an amendment doesn't specify otherwise than it takes effect as soon as it is a part of the constitution, i.e. as soon as the vote is confirmed.
As far as what happens with the current [in progress] term, there is no term for chief justice. Once the constitution is changed there is no basis for anyone to claim they are the chief justice unless they are elected by the rest of the justices.
Sure it does. It takes effect immediately. There is no Chief Justice until one is elected.
"It takes effect immediately". You seem pretty sure of yourself. Can you grab that part of the law that states that?
(Still holding on for Ignorance is Bliss. A delightfully appropriate moniker.)
I am not trying to be thick here, I am just asking "how do you know"? What is the legal rule or precedent that gives you so much confidence? I don't mind you being right, I just want to know how you are right so that it is consistent, repeatable, and provable.
Ignorance is Bliss was the only commenter that had the integrity to call out Althouse in regards to my imposter posting under my name, which I do respect.
. You seem pretty sure of yourself. Can you grab that part of the law that states that?
This isn't a "law," it is the Constitution now, since it was duly passed democratically by the people of Wisconsin.
The First Amendment is not a "law" either.
If Ms. Abrahamson retires before the end of her term, we might as just give the seat to Garage. The outcome of their votes would be predictably the same, as well as the genuine nature of the arguments.
This is absolutely, completely, entertaining. Every time I tell myself I'm done keeping up with our Country's politics, something this awesome happens.
garage mahal said...
"It takes effect immediately". You seem pretty sure of yourself. Can you grab that part of the law that states that?
Here you go.
Whenever a referendum question submitted to a vote of the people is approved, the board shall record it and the secretary of state shall have the record bound in the volume containing the original enrolled laws passed at the next succeeding session of the legislature and have the record published with the laws thereof. Whenever a constitutional amendment or other statewide validating or ratifying referendum question which is approved by the people does not expressly state the date of effectiveness, it shall become effective at the time the chairperson of the board or the chairperson's designee certifies that the amendment or referendum question is approved.
22nd Amendment to the US Constitution:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
If what you say is what was intended, the above is how it is done here in America, anyways.
Now, in the middle of that term, some in Wisconsin propose to divest her of that right
It is not a right. It was a provision of law changed by the citizens, whom the justices serve.
Of course, being liberals, they just want the peasants to know their place. Powerless. On.their.knees.
garage mahal: There is nothing in the amendment, and nothing in the referendum question that mentioned anything about Abrahamson or removing her as Chief Justice. Nothing. She has already been selected Chief Justice. There is no precedent where a sitting state Chief Justice has been relieved of their duties. Why would she be removed? Because frothing wingnuts don't like her?
Who is talking about "removing" Abrahamson? She'll just be replaced, by a new Chief Justice who's been selected in complete accordance with the state constitution.
Todd said...
I am not trying to be thick here, I am just asking "how do you know"? What is the legal rule or precedent that gives you so much confidence? I don't mind you being right, I just want to know how you are right so that it is consistent, repeatable, and provable.
To whom is this directed? If to me, what is it that you want to know how I know?
@Left Bank of the Charles: Her reelection confirmed that right for another 10 years.
Government office is not a right. We didn't wait for George III to die before Washington took office. We explicitly exmepted Harry Truman from the two-term limit when that amendment went in which avoided this situation.
Government office is held according to the law and changes according to the law. It is not a right vested in the office-holder, or else we have aristocracy again.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
4/10/15, 1:23 PM
Thanks for that! So it is effective at the performance of that process.
Now as to its immediate effects on the current office holder...
To be ridiculous with the example, if the electorate passed an amendment that said the Governor must be oriental, would that force a new election or would the next Governor need to meet that requirement?
Here you go.
Here is the amendment.
Where in here do I find that the sitting Chief Justice gets removed before their term is expired?
One of the ironies of all of this is Abrahamson's purported love of the state constitution. She wrote and spoke extensively on the subject when I was a law student in the 1980s. State constitutions were viewed as a way to get around unfavorable Supreme Court precedent. As long as the decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds, a federal court could not overturn a state court decision that granted an individual more rights than afforded under the U.S. constitution. Times have changed. Now, she is using the federal constitution in an attempt to get around a clear, albeit new, provision in the state constitution.
What is hilarious is to see liberals frothing, yes, garage, you are the frothing winger here, that "Lady Shirly" has a "right" to "her" office.
Her right to her office obtained as long as the constitution said she had a right, and not a minute longer. The constitution embodies the sovereign will of the people.
Why do liberals always seem to be trying to find a way around democracy? Flee-bagging, assaults on legislators, using prosecutors for political ends...
It's like Althouse is Tolstoy and creating these great plots of a dying aristocracy solely for our delectation.
Todd said...
To be ridiculous with the example, if the electorate passed an amendment that said the Governor must be oriental, would that force a new election or would the next Governor need to meet that requirement?
That is a much harder question, because the Governor was elected to a specific term, so I would need to see details of the old constitution and the new version, and even then it might be a toss-up, depending on the wording.
Blogger garage mahal said...
Here you go.
Here is the amendment.
Where in here do I find that the sitting Chief Justice gets removed before their term is expired?
You just had it explained to you.
The new law, which requires an election of the 7 justices, goes into effect as soon as the count is certified as approved.
My guess is, you will see it as soon as you believe it.
If she is willing to present such poor arguments in a lawsuit, then maybe she is no longer capable of judging.
Garage Mahal asks,
Where in here do I find that the sitting Chief Justice gets removed before their term is expired?
Which term? Is there a term for Chief Justice? If so, what is it?
If not, what are you talking about?
Thinking like a liberal who cannot accept reality, here is a question.
Suppose Justice A has 40 years on the Supreme Court and the most seniority.
Suppose Justice B has 20 years on the court and the 2nd most seniority.
Suppose Justice A fails to win reelection in 2006. Justice B becomes the new Chief Justice.
Then, in 2016, Justice A wins election. Justice A has 40 years on the court and Justice B has only around 30 years on the court.
Does Justice B have to immediately relinquish the spot of Chief Justice? Or in the liberal mind, would Justice A be out of luck because Justice B was elected as Chief Justice?
The new law, which requires an election of the 7 justices, goes into effect as soon as the count is certified as approved.
What does it say about the justice that currently holds the title Chief Justice?
garage wrote: What does it say about the justice that currently holds the title Chief Justice?
It all depends upon what the definition of "shall be" shall be.
garage mahal said...
Where in here do I find that the sitting Chief Justice gets removed before their term is expired?
You don't, because they did not have a term to expire.
Your turn. Find me anywhere that grants Abrahamson ( or anyone else ) any claim to the title of chief justice once the amendment is in effect, other than by being elected by the other justices.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
She was invested in the office of Chief Justice under the Wisconsin constitution by right of seniority. Her reelection confirmed that right for another 10 years.
If she was Chief Justice under the Wisconsin constitution, then changing the constitution changes her job description. It is not a right. It is a priviledge granted by the people of Wisconsin.
Garage this is so awesome. Keep it going man! You're performance today is quite impressive.
Wisconsin voters could settle this with a recall.
Holy shit Batman! Is garage off his meds?
Find me anywhere that grants Abrahamson ( or anyone else ) any claim to the title of chief justice once the amendment is in effect, other than by being elected by the other justices.
I can't. It isn't in there either way. The amendment and the referendum question was intentionally left vague. The legislature easily could have added a sentence clearly outlining what happens to current Chief Justice. But they didn't. The state "a Chief Justice" instead of "the Chief Justice", for instance.
Anyhow, Abrahamson will get her day in court. Just what North Korea had in mind when they founded this country.
The only way I see this ending in Abrahamson's favor is if the federal court defers to the state court to rule on when it takes effect, a partisan state appeals court rules that it does not go into effect until Abrahamson's term is over, and the entire Wisconsin Supreme Court has to recuse itself, leaving the appeals court rule standing.
Hmm, a false statement of fact in a complaint filed in federal court. Is it Rule 11 time? For you non-lawyers, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires in pertinent part:
(b) REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
* * *
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(c) SANCTIONS.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
I love the fact the entire amendment is in this thread and yet...it's still going. LOL.
You ARE the Man, Garage! You deserve your own tag. You have earned it sir.
garage mahal said...
It isn't in there either way.
It does not need to be there either way. It has to be there to grant someone the position of chief justice. If it does not do that ( and we agree that it doesn't ) then there is no chief justice, until one is chosen as specified in the constitution, which only happens when one is elected by the other justices.
Equally delicious is that Ignorance has posted the text and link to the WI law that says constitutional changes take effect as soon as the vote is verified.
And yet...
#GarageforChiefJustice
There is something very ugly about the way everyone is ganging up on commenter Garage Mahal.
If you think he is wrong then point it out, but all I see is chest thumping and insults about his: weight, age, athletic ability, intelligence etc.
Wanna know what ruins a good comment thread for all us semi-silent lurkers? Laslo being vulgar and the rest of you keyboard jockeys trying to be manly-men.
Make your point, be interesting, add something, share a new viewpoint, tell a joke, and then....STFU.
So garage says: Where in here do I find that the sitting Chief Justice gets removed before their term is expired?
So....since Shirley baby's term ends in 2019, if she croaks before then will she get to "sit as Chief Justice" ala, Weekend at Bernies's, until her term expires? Or will they "remove" her when she gets ripe?
Just asking!
Jim, the commenter Ignorance has posted the relevant quote from the constitution about when changes take place, to wit:
"Whenever a constitutional amendment or other statewide validating or ratifying referendum question which is approved by the people does not expressly state the date of effectiveness, it shall become effective at the time the chairperson of the board or the chairperson's designee certifies that the amendment or referendum question is approved."
This is as crystal clear as you can get. The change takes place immediately. She is no longer chief justice, and it is up to the court, at their next meeting, to choose a new one.
And if you're going to condemn commenters for abusing him, you need to condemn garage for abusing them in return. Fair's fair.
Jim in St Louis said...
If you think he is wrong then point it out, but all I see is chest thumping and insults about his: weight, age, athletic ability, intelligence etc.
It has been pointed out, repeatedly, by quite a few of us. If garage chooses to be intentionally stupid ( and I don't see how a fair-minded person reading this thread could conclude otherwise ( but maybe my previous interactions with him have biased my opinion )) then insults are not out of line.
And Laslo is a national treasure.
@Jim, I see you're new around here. Garage mahal is impervious to things like truth, rational discussion, and objective reality. His normal mode of commentary is the snarky personal attack. He gets as he gives.
#GarageforChiefJustice
It does not need to be there either way
Says you. Due Process is enshrined in the Constitution. Rights of persons cannot be removed without it. She gets her day in court.
Has anyone here actually read Abrahamson's complaint? Here.
#JiminStLouisforChiefJusticeunlesshethinksthisismeanandthenwellnevermind
If Ms. Abrahamson was running for "Chief Justice":
1) Wouldn't that be a separate election from just your regular old "Justice of the Supreme Court"?
2) Wouldn't then the other sitting members of the court be allowed to oppose her in a general public election, even if their terms didn't expire?
Anyone doubt for a millisecond that garbage would be taking the EXACT OPPOSITE STANCE on the effective date of this change if the current Chief Justice were a conservative?
Christian Schneider's article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel brings up a good point about why the court should choose its own leader: "...stories abound of Abrahamson, now in her 37th year on the court, ridiculing her colleagues. Former liberal Justice William Bablitch, who passed away in 2011, said that a 'good deal' of the responsibility for the acrimony on the court 'goes to her.'"
Bill P-
16 against 1-- and you use the word ‘Fair’.
Ignorance-
So because you fail to convince one die-hard liberal you just pile on? What happened to being an American and just saying “Well I sure am glad it’s a free country and everyone can have their own view” No, you have to jump on the dog pile.
Laslo/Betamax is vile and he is not funny.
Big Mike-
You see ziltch bozo, just because I don’t have your personality flaw that compels one to comment on every-single-f****ing –thread does not mean I am new. Been here long enough to see YOU pal, the YOU that you present here. And it is not a pretty picture.
Mike-
#hashtagjokesareso2010 Of course at my age I love to see something older than myself, so thanks for that.
Jim our whole foreign policy is now expressed in hashtags. Didn't you know? We brought back our girls from those murderers and the green revolution succeeded and...
@garage mahal:Rights of persons cannot be removed without it.
I find no right to hold the title of Chief Justice in the Wisoncsin or the Federal constitution.
There is no right to hold an office. She is not being deprived of a right. She is being deprived of a title and aposition due to the operation of law, and the state constitution to boot.
This is going to be a total career discrediting Helen Thomas-like embarrassment when the Federal Courts completely shoot this down.
I'm glad she sued.
Jim in St Louis said...
Ignorance-
So because you fail to convince one die-hard liberal you just pile on? What happened to being an American and just saying “Well I sure am glad it’s a free country and everyone can have their own view” No, you have to jump on the dog pile
1) I didn't fail to convince garage. Garage plays willfully stupid, I assume because he thinks it scores his side points.
2) I'm not trying to convince garage. I am countering his arguments so that if a reasonable person comes along, they don't think that garage's point of view is the only one.
3) I am being an American, and debating in its proudest traditions. If you never have, read some of the side-commentary going on amongst our founding fathers, often published under pseudonyms.
But I'll end on a point of agreement. Laslo is vile.
But funny as all hell. ( Okay, I tried to end on a point of agreement, but failed. )
I find no right to hold the title of Chief Justice in the Wisoncsin or the Federal constitution
Read her complaint. I linked it. She isn't challenging the amendment, she is challenging its implementation.
thank God garage and his friends discover this thread. Its fascinating seeing endless their back and forth.
Does garage have a website? Then you guys could argue with each other 24/7. Cut out the middle man (or woman)
garage mahal said...
Due Process is enshrined in the Constitution.
So is the right to be free from having soldiers quartered in our homes, which is about as relevant to the current situation as her Due Process claim.
@JiSL
Wanna know what ruins a good comment thread for all us semi-silent lurkers? Laslo being vulgar and the rest of you keyboard jockeys trying to be manly-men.
Nice that you can speak on behalf of all the "semi-silent lurkers". Is there some site where you all got together and took a vote on that?
Note that for a brief time, Althouse did not allow comments - seems like she had to reverse that policy. I suspect that the commenters give this blog the oxygen it needs to thrive.
alan-
Of course you are correct. I do not speak for all the lurkers, myself only.
p.s.
screw you and screw your petty, literalist reading.
" Laslo being vulgar..."
"Laslo/Betamax is vile..."
If it has to be a word that begins with 'V' then I would prefer 'Vinegar'.
Scarlett Johannson says it should be "Virile" and that is why I wait on her hand and foot.
When you are on "Hand and foot" with a beautiful woman you can do some vile and vulgar things. Some would say.
I am Laslo.
Abrahamson's complaint states that the plaintiffs "voted for her with the expectation that her successful reelection, in which she campaigned as 'Wisconsin’s Chief,' would keep her in the position of Chief Justice until her term expires in 2019, absent her resignation, death, disability, or recall."
Doesn't the inclusion of "recall" suggest that they understood that the voters of Wisconsin, as a whole, could remove Abrahamson from her position prior to 2019? And isn't that exactly what they've done?
garage mahal said...
Has anyone here actually read Abrahamson's complaint?
I just finished it. It was even more vacuous than I had expected. Complete crap. It should be laughed out of federal court.
A claim in state court on whether it applies immediately or only at the end of her term ( her term as a justice, the office of chief justice has no term ) would not be frivolous, but she should clearly lose such a case as well.
Doesn't the inclusion of "recall" suggest that they understood that the voters of Wisconsin, as a whole, could remove Abrahamson from her position prior to 2019? And isn't that exactly what they've done?
Voters also could have removed her as Chief Justice in 2009. Instead, they elected her in a landslide.
Voters also could have removed her as Chief Justice in 2009.
No they couldn't. The voters had no opportunity to vote on who should be chief justice in 2009. They still don't.
garage mahal: Voters also could have removed her as Chief Justice in 2009. Instead, they elected her in a landslide.
But they did not guarantee that they would allow her to keep that position until 2019. They retained the right (and ability) to change their minds. The mention of "recall" in her complaint acknowledges that.
And if they have the freedom to remove her entirely before 2019, they certainly have the freedom to remove her as Chief (but retain her as a regular justice) before 2019.
Apparently she lost round 1 in Federal Court.
khesanh0802 said...
Apparently she lost round 1 in Federal Court.
Nothing substantial. The basically told her she has to wait until they actually remove her from office before she can claim any harm done.
DENIED!
Here's what the WI Government Accountability board had to say about the amendment. Pretty simple and clear to me.
UW-Madison Political Science professor Barry Burden said the conflict is a culmination of months and years of “partisan squabble” within the high court.
“[The constitutional amendment] is not unreasonable, there are a bunch of reasonable ways to elect justices,” Burden said. “It just changes a status quo that has existed for a long time and you need a good reason to do that. It is a change to voter expectations.”
The voters in Wisconsin were smart enough to understand exactly what they were changing.
The voters in Wisconsin were smart enough to understand exactly what they were changing.
But those same voters had no idea Abrahamson was running as Chief Justice in the last election when they overwhelmingly reelected her.
They knew, in 2009, that if Abrahamson were reelected, she would continue as Chief Justice as long as she met the required criteria.
What some of them didn't seem to understand was that those criteria were subject to change.
But those same voters had no idea Abrahamson was running as Chief Justice in the last election when they overwhelmingly reelected her.
The voters knew they weren't electing her 'Chief Justice'. They did however understand the current condition of the process which they then changed through legal, constitutional amendment.
Consider it a recall. It's WAY different State than it was in 2009. A better one.
Garage...you seem to be the only one, along with the soon to be former Chief, pretending to not understand.
No one is surprised that a liberal is filing a lawsuit to defend a law, which gives her unearned privileges, even when the voters overwhelmingly voted against her.
Moreover, isn't this age-ism kind of illegal? The party of the "Young" fight to keep the power of the Old against the Young.
"When they sold this to other Republicans as a chance to dump Shirley, I begged them to reconsider,” said the lawyer who regularly works for WMC clients and the state GOP. “She is going to kill them if there is a hint of retribution in their actions.”
There hasn't been this much comedy given to us by a robed judge since The Dancing Itos.
Holy shit, will garage ever oppose a liberal? Fuck the law, it's all about the ideology.
Holy shit.
Madison.com article
Read this gem:
KickiceWis - April 09, 2015 3:18 pm
OK, let me help you out here. Following is how a constitutional amendment happens in Wisconsin. Pay very close attention to the first paragraph. If the legislature doesn't bring this to a joint resolution by both houses, nothing changes. If the people really had the power to bring constitutional change, the constitution would change weekly. Stop being ridiculous. This constitutional change came about because Scott Walker wanted Abrahamson punished. Nothing more.
The legislature can initiate a constitutional amendment by passing a joint resolution that has originated in either house, with a majority vote of members in both houses. The legislature must record the vote in its journals. This is referred to as “first consideration.” If the proposal passes, the secretary of state publishes it for three months in the official state newspaper before the next general election for choosing a legislature. The next legislature can consider
and debate the amendment but cannot change the amendment. This
is called “second consideration.” If the next legislature amends the proposal, it reverts to first consideration and the process starts over. On second consideration, the resolution must contain a complete and precise statement of the question that will appear on the ballot. If the second legislature agrees to
the proposal by a majority vote in each house, the secretary of state
will then forward the proposal to the election officials of each county, who place the proposed amendment on the ballot at a general election. The ballot question must fairly state the effect of the proposed amendment, but if more than one amendment is proposed, the ballot must allow the people to vote on each
amendment separately. Closely related amendments with a single
purpose may be submitted as a single ballot question. If the electorate
approves the proposal (by a simple majority), the Government Accountability Board certifies that the people have approved and ratified it and the amendment
becomes part of the constitution.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chief-justice-shirley-abrahamson-sues-over-amendment-approved-by-voters/article_e448ebbb-f376-5a40-a2f0-ac0515b31ba3.html#ixzz3WwfiG1JQ
Another garage mahal.
Holy fuck. So if I don't like a law I can break it?
Good luck with that.
But those same voters had no idea Abrahamson was running as Chief Justice in the last election when they overwhelmingly reelected her
Obviously, since then, she's lost the voters confidence as Chief Justice.
Ms. Abrahamson will lose this court battle against the people of Wisconsin, and not finish out her term.
Unbelievable. The Constitution of Wisconsin was legally changed and is very clear about this matter.
But liberals keep slinging the shit, hoping it works.
Good luck with that.
Let's say you legally own a slave.
And then the country passes an Amendment saying there shall be no more slaves.
But you already own your slaves, and paid for them when it was legal! The new terms don't really apply to you. You can keep your slaves until they've lived out their terms.
MayBee - slaveholders c. 1865 found out the hard way.
The comments at Madison.com are, for the most part, incredibly dense. Yet they think they are making clever points. Once again they are bewildered by the voters (who according to the comments are stupid dupes) and constitutional law (which they think is designed to produce the result they believe to be correct.)
@Jim from St Louis
alan-
Of course you are correct. I do not speak for all the lurkers, myself only.
p.s.
screw you and screw your petty, literalist reading.
Ha Ha, that's rich coming from someone trying to advocate for the most literalist commenter that has ever inhabited this blog.
Get the hell out of here - you can't keep up.
Shirley Abrahamson should resign if she is unable to accept the fact that the people of the state of Wisconsin can amend their constitution.
@Jim, thank you for pointing out the failure in my personality. I had to go get another keyboard because the old one shorted out from the tears pouring from my eyes in shame and humiliation.
Thank you so very, very much. I promise to mend my ways and vote for stupid, reality-challenged, Dumbocrats every chance I get.
Or maybe not.
What if she refuses to resign? What is the step - impeachment?
Look what Obama has done to every other Democrat aside from himself.
Look at the wreckage he has left in his wake. Remember 2009 garage, when it was all "I won!" and "Fuck these wingnuts!"
@Alex:What if she refuses to resign?
Nothing, as of now she is not Chief Justice. She can stamp her feet and claim she is, she can make a paper hat that says Chief Justice on it, she can call herself that. And I can call myself Marie of Roumania.
She's not Chief Justice unless she gets elected it by the other justices, no resignation is necesary from a position she does not actually hold as a matter of law.
all I see is chest thumping and insults about his: weight, age, athletic ability, intelligence etc.
It's the only way some of them know how to communicate. At least online, can't imagine them behaving as such in public.
Tho, in all fairness, it appears to be mostly just two or three people posting under many different names. You can tell by their "tells". I wish there was better moderation for such things, but as nothing will change as long as the page-clicks keep happening.
"What if she refuses to resign?" Who cares? She doesn't need to resign. Once the amendment is certified as passed (which may already have happened, for all I know) she is no longer Chief Justice.
A better question is What if she refuses to admit that she is no longer Chief Justice and (e.g.) tries to grab the gavel from whoever is elected in her place, or shout him/her down, or take the Chief Justice seat when court is in session? Will the others have to call the men in white suits?
What if she refuses to admit that she is no longer Chief Justice and (e.g.) tries to grab the gavel from whoever is elected in her place, or shout him/her down, or take the Chief Justice seat when court is in session
Judge Prosser will step up and do something about it. He has a history of settling disagreements in the court with his own two hands.
it appears to be mostly just two or three people posting under many different names.
Still can't get over the idea that there are lots of conservatives in this world, whatever you may think about Madison, where there are also probably many, but they just keep quiet about it the way I do in Vermont.
Plus Madisonfella gets her panties in a twist if anybody should accuse her of being a sock puppet.
---Judge Prosser will step up and do something about it.
Ann Walsh Bradley will slap the renegade justices up the side of their heads with her billy club. Prosser will raise his hands in defense and will be the only one not looking like Harry Reid.
FIFY.
" garage mahal said...
"When they sold this to other Republicans as a chance to dump Shirley, I begged them to reconsider,” said the lawyer who regularly works for WMC clients and the state GOP. “She is going to kill them if there is a hint of retribution in their actions.”
Not one named source. Hahahahahahahaha
---“She is going to kill them if there is a hint of retribution in their actions.”---
No, she will encourage her enforcer Ann Walsh Bradley to kill them. They will all end up looking like Harry Reid after his visit from Bruno.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-really-happened-to-harry-reid-part-4-reid-changes-his-story.php
"I can't. It isn't in there either way. The amendment and the referendum question was intentionally left vague. The legislature easily could have added a sentence clearly outlining what happens to current Chief Justice. But they didn't. The state "a Chief Justice" instead of "the Chief Justice", for instance. Anyhow, Abrahamson will get her day in court...."
You think a federal court should say what the Wisconsin constitution means? The final authoritative expositor of Wisconsin law is the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Why go to federal court for the answer to that? Seems to me the justices on their own should figure out what the Wisconsin constitution means and proceed accordingly. I would think under the new provision, the tendency would be to select the most senior justice. The only reason not to would be if there was a substantial reason to reject her leadership. Why can't these justices work things out among themselves? If they can't, doesn't that say something about the leadership over the last 2 decades?
There's no necessary contradiction between the 2009 result and this one anyway.
Imagine Wisconsin voters ranking the following three alternatives:
1. Abrahamson remains on the Court, but with someone else as Chief Justice.
2. Abrahamson continues as Chief Justice.
3. Abrahamson leaves the Court.
The fact that they picked (2) in 2009 is no proof that they wouldn't rather have (1): under the state constitution, that option was not on offer. All we know is that they preferred (2) to (3). Even assuming that they haven't changed their minds since then, they're not being inconsistent in passing an amendment that creates the likelihood of (1).
but as nothing will change as long as the page-clicks keep happening.
Hey man, tell us where you are and we'll come rescue you.
How long have they had you chained in front of that computer forcing you to participate here?
The final authoritative expositor of Wisconsin law is the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
If it actually gets to them in court wouldn't they all have to recuse themselves?
Marie of Roumania said...
Nothing, as of now she is not Chief Justice.
Actually she is still chief until the vote is certified which probably happens around the end of April.
Jim in St. Louis,
You should go back to being a semi-lurker. If not, you should have a thicker skin. You can't be Miss Manners and then turn around and tell people to "piss off".
Garage is a vulgar, stupid, "bootlicker" (one of his favorite terms for "wingnuts" from "North Korea"). He never plays nice, so he gets what he gives. He is a predictable bore, without nuance, and no new moves.
And Laslo is great.
I find it strange that you are critical of people picking on Garage, and you claim that Laslo is too vulgar (for semi-lurkers), but then when you are called out on the fact that you 'don't speak for ALL lurkers - as you claimed - you turn around and tell that person to "piss off" .
- From a lurker who knows that you don't speak for him, and would guess that you don't even speak for most "lurkers".
Maybe those guys at Breitbart simply hacked the electronic ballot and changed the ballot in the same way they hacked innocent Anthony Weiners twitter account.
It's the money. Pay her off and she will go away. At least that's what Charlie Sheen said.
If it actually gets to them in court wouldn't they all have to recuse themselves?
Would not the rule of necessity apply here? (Where all the judges must recuse themselves, the court cannot not resolve the matter; hence the rule of necessity trumps the recusal.)
HoodlumDoodlum said: "If you build an asbestos factory under one set of laws and the laws change in a way that makes your factory worthless whom can you sue to get your investment back?"
Great point. See, e.g. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837). The Charles River Bridge Co. had been granted an exclusive charter to construct the Charles River bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge. Later, the MA legislature authorized another bridge built proximate to the CRB, and they sued, arguing the MA legislature had broken its charter. The SC dismissed the suit, arguing the economic harm the CRB endured as a consequence of the WB did not violate the contract, noting the right of the legislature (and the people) to make improvements irrespective of their impact on private economic interests. D.GOOCH
JackOfVA said...
Would not the rule of necessity apply here?
That's why I love this blog. I learn something new every day. Thanks!
garage mahal said...
"There is nothing in the amendment, and nothing in the referendum question that mentioned anything about Abrahamson or removing her as Chief Justice. Nothing. She has already been selected Chief Justice. There is no precedent where a sitting state Chief Justice has been relieved of their duties. Why would she be removed? Because frothing wingnuts don't like her?"
You are acting like the Wisconsin SC has the same institutional structure as the USSC. That's not true (even putting aside the 'election' vs 'selection' difference). At the USSC level, the Chief Justice is appointed - either when he or she is appointed to the bench or in a separate confirmation for a sitting justice. That is NOT the case for Wisconsin, where the CJ designation was given to the most senior justice on the Court.
So your language is all wrong. She is not being "removed" from anything. There doesn't have to be a "precedent"...and why would there be? Has Wisconsin changed its Constitution through amendment to change the CJ selection process before? She was not "selected" as Chief Justice. The Constitution made her CJ entirely on the basis of her seniority. What the Constitution gives, the Constitution can clearly take away. That you seem incapable of acknowledging that it is the properly amended Wisconsin constitution that controls here, not "wingnuts" or whoever you might like to paint as a boogeyman, is some serious denial of reality. D.GOOCH
@JackofVA:Would not the rule of necessity apply here?
Not sure if this is a subtle criticism. Necessity usually refers to emergency powers. I don't think invasion, disaster, or insurrection are in play here--not yet...
I don't see why the justices would have to recuse themselves. They have to vote on a Chief Justice ANYWAY.
A Supreme Court ruling against Abrahamson is no more a conflict of interest than the justices voting against her for Chief Justice would be.
madisonfella being forced to read the Althouse blog.
Gabriel said...
I don't see why the justices would have to recuse themselves. They have to vote on a Chief Justice ANYWAY.
They only get to vote for the Chief when then amendment takes effect. If the amendment does not take effect until the end of Abrahamson's current term as a justice, then it really shouldn't be determined by a vote based on who they want for Chief Justice.
I don't think that's the case, the Chief Justice should be voted on as soon as the result is certified. But if the interpretation of the amendment is the question before the court then they all have a conflict of interest. I do think that the rule of necessity applies, and solves the problem.
I'm not sure it would constitute a conflict of interest for the justices - at least not one that rises to the level of necessitating recusal. It would for Abrahamson - it would cost her $8000 bucks. But no one of the justices is guaranteed to replace her...so while it *could* net them cash and prestige, it is by no means certain.
I see this more equivalent to the rule-setting every SC does for the judicial system. These rules apply to the justice themselves, so they have a conflict in theory when making those decisions, but it is their decision to make. D.GOOCH
The new constitutional standard applies when the vote is certified. on that date the justices will vote for a new chief. I see nothing that has damaged SA. Under a normal, adult, professional relationship, respect, honor, and sense of respect, would carry the day and SA would retain her position. If she has so poisoned that relationship that she already knows she will be booted, that is of her own doing.
Dad taught me to never burn bridges, for you never know when you need the support of others you may have been quick to disrespect.SA is reaping exactly what she has sown.
As far as recusal. I thought judges were self regulating on that. If they don't, they don't.
This is Wisconsin though.
Home of Judge Sume that declared legislation was unconstitutional before it became a law. So judges adhering to the law is not at the top of their priorities
Shirley you must be joking....(apologies to Airplane!)
I love the way Laslo answers the charge of vileness.
("I am shocked, shocked, to find vileness going on here!")
I find it amazing and pathetic, and at the same time profoundly revealing, that garage thinks the bullshit crap that Abrahamson put in her ads actually has the effect of changing state law.
BTW, I'm too lazy to try to figure out if Abrahamson filed this action pro se or if she has an attorney. If the latter, please let me know when that pathetic excuse for an officer of the court has been disbarred, ok?
Gabriel said...
Not sure if this is a subtle criticism. Necessity usually refers to emergency powers. I don't think invasion, disaster, or insurrection are in play here--not yet...
In tort and criminal matters, the doctrine of "necessity" is sort of as you describe it. Classic illustration is you are lost in the woods and are in immediate danger of freezing to death. You find a cabin, break in and warm up and eat some food you find there. In a criminal prosecution for burglary, the necessity defense can be asserted. Or blowing up buildings to create a firebreak in order to stop a fire from destroying the city.
The same term "necessity" is used in deciding whether an arguably valid request for recusal of all the judges on the court can be over-ridden as otherwise the case cannot be resolved. This sometimes comes up in challenges to changes in judicial pay, or retirement benefits or the like, where every judge on the court has a monetary interest in the subject matter and would normally therefore be subject to recusal. Since this would make it impossible to decide the case, the doctrine of necessity is applied. In Wisconsin, presumably each of the 7 SCT judges would have a potential financial conflict of interest due to increased salary from being elected as CJ.
Winning an election to remove the Chief Justice = 'petty'
Losing an election to remove the governor = 'not petty."
I think I am beginning to get this now.
If a Democrat votes for a justice with the expectation that she will serve out her term, then the expectation gains the force of law.
If a Republican votes for a governor with the expectation that he will serve out his full term, he is a "frothing wingnut" and his political desires carry no weight.
Suddenly it all makes sense! Here I was thinking that we are all equal before the law, but we are not! That was why I was confused! Republicans are sub-human. It would be like giving gorillas full political rights! How stupid would that be?
Jim from St Louis came here to school us.
On how to treat gragemahal.
he called Lazlo vulgar
(The silly old bugger.)
An now he isn't here at all.
Not garage. But the other stupid bastard, Jim from St Louis
Someone may have pointed this out in another valiant attempt to educate the close minded Garage. I so, I apologize for being redundant.
Look up the term "Bill of Attainder;"
If the state constitutional change specifically referenced Justice Abrahamson, that would violate the US Constitution's prohibition on such acts.
And the prohibition from granting titles of nobility pretty much tears up his argument that she has a right to the office until she dies.
How long have they had you chained in front of that computer forcing you to participate here?
About as long as you've been forced to read my posts.
Seriously, I don't understand why you and "Tim" are having this little meltdown. Do you even know why yourself?
I have been driving the posted speed limit 55 on Highway 14. They have now changed to 45. But I am grandfathered in, right??
It is perfectly possible to change a constitution or city charter, in a way that changes the powers of people elected under the old charter or constitution.
In fact they could even abolish an office before a term expired.
There's very much precedent for that.
How can anyone seriously claim the opposite?
Even if this was done merely to manuever someone out of an office.
4/11/15, 6:57 AM
Blogger Rusty said...
Jim from St Louis came here to school us.
An[sic]now he isn't here at all.
Not garage. But the other stupid bastard, Jim from St Louis
Here most every day.
Post a Comment