Althouse: "Wisconsin Supreme Court justices have moved quickly to replace longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson with Justice Patience Roggensack."

April 30, 2015

"Wisconsin Supreme Court justices have moved quickly to replace longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson with Justice Patience Roggensack."

"Abrahamson’s attorney Robert Peck says in a letter filed in a federal court that Abrahamson continues to believe she is still chief justice."

Oh, no! Too many chiefs!

86 comments:

MadisonMan said...: Petty politics at work.

So they replace the octogenarian with the septuagenarian. Progress?; 4/30/15, 8:30 AM
Big Mike said...: ... Abrahamson continues to believe she is still chief justice.

Sort of typical of lefties that they believe any number of things that aren't true.; 4/30/15, 8:31 AM
Jaske said...: ... Abrahamson continues to mutter "My Precious, my Precious".; 4/30/15, 8:32 AM
paminwi said...: Thank goodness for quick action. If we waited for the courts, no decision would be made until Shirley's term is over giving her just what she wanted, not what the citizens wanted.; 4/30/15, 8:32 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: That's what democracy looks like !!!; 4/30/15, 8:34 AM
traditionalguy said...: They will have to fight this out chicko-a-chicko. The one with the best choke hold should win in the first round by a TKO. And remember, there is no crying in Chief justice Duels.; 4/30/15, 8:35 AM
MayBee said...: This reminds me of Mary Frances Berry's tenure on the Civil Rights Commission (from Wikipedia):

She continued to serve as chair of the Civil Rights Commission. In 1999, Berry persuaded the Clinton administration to appoint her editor at Alfred A. Knopf, Victoria Wilson, to the commission.[10] In 2001, she and the Democratic board members of the commission barred the seating of Peter Kirsanow,[11] who had been appointed by President George W. Bush to replace Wilson on the commission. Kirsanow sued, claiming Wilson's tenure had expired and he had been validly appointed. Wilson won in federal district court but ultimately lost on appeal in 2002, and the court ordered the seating of Kirsanow. The dispute determined which political party would have a majority of the board's members. Berry left office before the expiration of her term in late 2004 and was succeeded by Gerald A. Reynolds.

Democrats, who believe in Democracy, have hard time giving up power.; 4/30/15, 8:40 AM
lemondog said...: Democrats, who believe in Democracy, have hard time giving up power.

This is a Democracy and I run it!; 4/30/15, 8:43 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: Is she senile or something? This kind of behavior is just embarrassing.; 4/30/15, 8:48 AM
Chris N said...: Wisconsinites: Always have your Roggensack ready.; 4/30/15, 8:48 AM
gerry said...: Sort of typical of lefties that they believe any number of things that aren't true.

Postmodern jurisprudence. Your truth is yours, mine is mine... your law is yours, mine is mine.; 4/30/15, 8:51 AM
Seeing Red said...: I wonder if she will sue because it's a hostile workplace? They voted her out. lLOLOL. What's the term I'm looking for, collegial .....; 4/30/15, 8:54 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: He says Roggensack accepted the position, even though Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Patrick Crooks objected.

Doesn't Roggensack know that it isn't over until Shirley and her fans say it is?; 4/30/15, 8:57 AM
Temujin said...: Its never about serving the propke. It's always about gaining and holding power and advantage over the people.; 4/30/15, 8:57 AM
Temujin said...: Its never about serving the propke. It's always about gaining and holding power and advantage over the people.; 4/30/15, 8:58 AM
MayBee said...: I love that the Chief Justice in waiting is named "Patience".; 4/30/15, 8:59 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I'm thinking: King Lear.

But King Lear stepped down.; 4/30/15, 9:04 AM
gspencer said...: "She continues to believe that she's still the chief justice."

OK, no problem. She can believe anything she may choose - that life doesn't begin at conception; that the moon is made of blue cheese; that the Cubs will win the 2015 World Series - she just isn't gonna be the chief justice in fact.; 4/30/15, 9:05 AM
Meade said...: "Abrahamson’s attorney Robert Peck says in a letter filed in a federal court that Abrahamson continues to believe she is still chief justice."

Fine, but what I want to know is — Is Generalísimo
Francisco Franco still dead?; 4/30/15, 9:05 AM
Ann Althouse said...: To be respectful to Justice Abrahamson, I don't think it's that she is going to be delusional or to attempt to exercise the power that's been taken away from her.

I think she's just going to pursue her legal argument in her case in federal court and attempt to achieve a restoration of power.; 4/30/15, 9:06 AM
mccullough said...: Reason not the need; 4/30/15, 9:06 AM
mccullough said...: She has a not ridiculous claim for the difference in compensation. Neither she nor anyone who voted for her reelection has any claim that she remain in the position.; 4/30/15, 9:09 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Didn't George Costanza just keep showing up for work even though he was fired?; 4/30/15, 9:14 AM
Big Mike said...: To be respectful to Justice Abrahamson

If she demonstrated respect to her colleagues would she be in this position?; 4/30/15, 9:17 AM
Todd said...: I wonder if they are going to have a tussle over seating when they next meet. Doesn't the "Chief Justice" have a special chair/place they sit?

Are they going to have to bring in another "special chair" and sit them side by side?

Will the second to arrive simply sit in the lap of the first to get there?

Inquiring minds want to know...; 4/30/15, 9:20 AM
YoungHegelian said...: Maybe it's time to put some Dean Martin on the jukebox.; 4/30/15, 9:21 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Q: Surely, you can't have 2 Chief Justices, can you?

A: But I still believe I am Chief - and don't call me Shirley.; 4/30/15, 9:22 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Didn't George Costanza just keep showing up for work even though he was fired?

And to add insult to injury, the other justices are now referring to Patience as "T Bone" and Shirley as "Koko".; 4/30/15, 9:24 AM
Fred Drinkwater said...: Gee whiz. Wisconsin was on my list in case the crazy in California finally drove this native away.
Lessee.... striking WI, next on the list is ... North Dakota?!
I need a longer list.; 4/30/15, 9:29 AM
JAORE said...: I continue to believe I am the lost Prince of Belgium. It is not that I am delusional or will attempt to exercise my power that's been taken away. But I will pursue my claim in case the EU collapses and attempt to achieve a restoration of my power.

Bow ye peasants bow.; 4/30/15, 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann Althouse said...
I think she's just going to pursue her legal argument in her case in federal court and attempt to achieve a restoration of power.

But absent a stay by the Federal Court, the majority of the Justices, backed by Walker, can ignore her can't they?; 4/30/15, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: lemondog said...
Democrats, who believe in Democracy, have hard time giving up power.

This is a Democracy and I run it!

same approach by Islamists. Put into words by the Turkish Islamic Boss.

"Democracy is like a street car line. When we get to my stop, we're getting off"; 4/30/15, 9:44 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
Petty politics at work.

So they replace the octogenarian with the septuagenarian. Progress?"

What a painfully moronic comment.

And let me add that there is nothing petty about amending the constitution of Wisconsin. Two sessions of legislative action, and then a referendum vote by the voters. Which passed by a significant margin. And the vote was not getting someone younger you putz, but having a chief that the rest of the court felt most confident in their leadership ability.; 4/30/15, 9:53 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: The Drill SGT said...

But absent a stay by the Federal Court, the majority of the Justices, backed by Walker, can ignore her can't they?

They can, but I believe the Chief Justice has some administrative authority over some activity in the judicial branch ( lesser appointments, case assignments, scheduling ). The people who carry out the orders need to know who has the authority to make the decisions. It would be a real mess if some of them were following Abrahamson's orders, and others were following Roggensack's.; 4/30/15, 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: When is the first sitting? Are cameras permitted in the courtroom? This will be comedy gold.; 4/30/15, 10:01 AM
lemondog said...: Elton John - The King Must Die

No man's a jester playing Shakespeare
Round your throne room floor
While the juggler's act is danced upon
The crown that you once wore

And sooner or later
Everybody's kingdom must end
And I'm so afraid your courtiers
Cannot be called best friends...

Lyrics; 4/30/15, 10:07 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "She has a not ridiculous claim for the difference in compensation."

??

She has a good argument for standing since that extra compensation is at stake. She's not just fighting for the power of the position of chief (which is probably not a good enough "injury in fact" to support standing in federal court), but for a concrete and specific $5,000 per year if she wins and gets to keep the chief position.

But she will only get that money if her claim of entitlement to the chief position is successful. It's not like she's entitled to the $5,000 apart from payment for the extra work if indeed she ends up getting to do it. There's no separately standing claim for the money. Either the claim for entitlement to stay in the position is good or it isn't.; 4/30/15, 10:09 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Ha ha ha ha ha ha; 4/30/15, 10:12 AM
~ Gordon Pasha said...: Assigning authors of case decisions will be a hoot. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they meet in conference.; 4/30/15, 10:13 AM
MadisonMan said...: And let me add that there is nothing petty about amending the constitution of Wisconsin

Congratulations on once again commenting on what you think I write, and not on what I write.

The Petty Politics are in the offices of the Supreme Court.; 4/30/15, 10:16 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Does not holding the belief "that she is still chief justice," which is contradicted by her own written opinion that laws like the one in dispute take effect "immediately upon certification," essentially indicate that she is unfit to use reason and apply the law fairly?; 4/30/15, 10:17 AM
Meade said...: "Oh, no! Too many chiefs!"

Too many chiefs and not enough Ho-Chunk.; 4/30/15, 10:21 AM
Dan Hossley said...: She probably also believes in man-made global warming, social justice redistributionist schemes, that we didn't land on the moon, there was a shooter on that grassy knoll and that Elvis is still alive.; 4/30/15, 10:23 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: She has a good argument for standing since that extra compensation is at stake. She's not just fighting for the power of the position of chief (which is probably not a good enough "injury in fact" to support standing in federal court), but for a concrete and specific $5,000 per year if she wins and gets to keep the chief position.

But she will only get that money if her claim of entitlement to the chief position is successful. It's not like she's entitled to the $5,000 apart from payment for the extra work if indeed she ends up getting to do it. There's no separately standing claim for the money. Either the claim for entitlement to stay in the position is good or it isn't.

Ahem. Allow me to interpret; I speak legalese. Ann is saying that the money cannot and should not be considered separately from her claim to the role of Chief.; 4/30/15, 10:30 AM
Curious George said...: "MadisonMan said...
Congratulations on once again commenting on what you think I write, and not on what I write.

The Petty Politics are in the offices of the Supreme Court."

LOL The vote had nothing to do the internal pettiness of the court. It was a requirement of the amendment.

And this still doesn't explain the moronic age comment? You think that their pettiness was because of Abrahamson's age? You think that a seventy year old is too old to sit on the court? be it's chief? How long have you had this age bias?; 4/30/15, 10:38 AM
ken in tx said...: When people say, "It's not the money, it's the principle of the matter." It's the money. Pay her off and she will shut up.; 4/30/15, 10:52 AM
Glenn Howes said...: If the State Legislature were to authorize a $5000, ex-Chief Justice stipend. Would that remove any leg she has to stand on?; 4/30/15, 10:57 AM
Curious George said...: "ken in tx said...
When people say, "It's not the money, it's the principle of the matter." It's the money. Pay her off and she will shut up."

It's not the money. Absent this change, or her death, Abrahamson would have been the longest sitting Chief Justice in Wisconsin history. Now she is second. That's what this is about.; 4/30/15, 11:05 AM
kcom said...: "To be respectful to Justice Abrahamson, I don't think it's that she is going to be delusional or to attempt to exercise the power that's been taken away from her.

I think she's just going to pursue her legal argument in her case in federal court and attempt to achieve a restoration of power."

And if that's not what she does what will you think then?; 4/30/15, 11:11 AM
Gabriel said...: @gerry: your law is yours, mine is mine.

That's actually ancient law. Roman citizens get Roman law, Jewish subjects of Rome get Jewish law, Frankish auxiliaries get Frankish law.

Postmodernism has circled around back to who? whom?; 4/30/15, 11:12 AM
Henry said...: "Abrahamson’s attorney Robert Peck says in a letter filed in a federal court that Abrahamson continues to believe she is still chief justice."

Yes, but is she Marie of Rumania?; 4/30/15, 11:13 AM
cubanbob said...: Althouse are you saying all of this comes down to losing $5,000 a year? Are her lawyers working for free? How much will this cost to litigate all the way through the appellate courts? $20,000? $30,000? More? The woman is in her eighties, how many years more can she serve as CJ just to cover the litigation costs? So unless she is getting a freebie (and that alone brings up a host of ethical questions) or is rather wealthy and can afford this vanity litigation the woman is delusional and for this alone ought to be removed from the bench.; 4/30/15, 11:19 AM
Alex said...: Why would any federal court even agree to hear this case?; 4/30/15, 11:37 AM
clint said...: She's welcome to continue to believe whatever she likes.

The question is, what happens when/if she tries to give orders as to the docket or case assignments?; 4/30/15, 11:44 AM
mccullough said...: She can get the money and not the position. It's not unconstitutional to condemn your house. It's unconstitutional not to pay you for it.

She has a property interest in the comp but not a property interest in the title and non pecuniary parts of the job.

She's asking to keep the title but she has no constitutional right to the job itself, only the compensation; 4/30/15, 11:55 AM
mccullough said...: Her case also doesn't belong in federal court since the state has a process for her to obtain her lost comp.

She hasn't been deprived of property without due process because the state provides a process for her. She should file her money claim in state court; 4/30/15, 11:57 AM
Peter said...: Pope vs. Antipope: welcome to medieval Wisconsin.; 4/30/15, 12:15 PM
Big Mike said...: @Dan Hossley, Elvis isn't still alive? I know someone who knows someone who swears she saw him in the checkout line at the Piggly Wiggly in Tupelo just the other day.; 4/30/15, 12:32 PM
Bill said...: 'Patience Roggensack' looks like a name dreamed up by Vonnegut.; 4/30/15, 12:35 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "But absent a stay by the Federal Court, the majority of the Justices, backed by Walker, can ignore her can't they?"

Ignore what? What are you picturing her doing? I'm picturing her waiting for the decision in the court case and hoping/believing she'll be able to regain her rightful place (with back wages).; 4/30/15, 12:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: Has anyone considered shopping her contract around to other states who will take her in a trade as long as Wisconsin pays part of her salary? You could probably get two law clerks and a Curmudgeon Law Professor for her.

But first she would have to pass a physical with drug tests and an LSAT.

The old saying goes, That you cannot fire slaves, you have to sell them.; 4/30/15, 1:00 PM
David said...: Let her believe that she is Chief Justice. Just stop her from acting on the belief (other than through the lawsuit that she had prepared before the referendum and should (please!) lose.)

Then pat her on the head and see if she retires. If she wants to have any reputation left, she should.

In the meantime, read Roberts' opinion today where he characterizes judges as "not politicians" and have a good laugh.

And about that pat on the head? Get consent first.; 4/30/15, 1:10 PM
hombre said...: "Abrahamson continues to believe she is still Chief Justice."

Fortunately for her being delusional is not grounds for removal. We know this because if it were, there would be no lefty judges.; 4/30/15, 1:11 PM
David said...: I sometimes have enough trouble believing that I am me. If I am not me, then I am somebody else. But I never get good purchase on who that somebody else is. Hope it's not Shirley, for her sake and mine.; 4/30/15, 1:15 PM
gerry said...: And about that pat on the head? Get consent first.

And you better get it in writing with witnesses, and notarized.

And - if you are on a college campus with womyn students, have a fainting couch handy.; 4/30/15, 1:18 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Ignore what? What are you picturing her doing? I'm picturing her waiting for the decision in the court case and hoping/believing she'll be able to regain her rightful place (with back wages).

Can't she in essence freeze the court? If she does win (but won't) would that nullify any decisions made by the court under Roggensack?

I don't understand the respect and sympathy owed to a judge to has shown none toward Wisconsin's Constitution, and the voters who approved its amendment.

If the justices moved this fast to oust her, I'd imagine there are other things they will now move on with haste that she may have stalled.

John Doe for instance.

It nice to see that $5000 is the disingenuous crux of whatever damage being claimed. It disheartening to see the courts and legal experts take this bullshit seriously.

I don't think she will finish out her term.; 4/30/15, 1:18 PM
RichardJohnson said...: MayBee @ 4/30/15, 8:40 AM
Democrats, who believe in Democracy, have hard time giving up power.
Which is why I like hearing their party called the "Democrat Party," instead of the "Democratic Party."; 4/30/15, 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "...Abrahamson continues to believe she is still chief justice."

Power of delusion. Some people believe they are god.; 4/30/15, 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Sunset Wisconsin: Starring Norma Desmond as Shirley Abrahamson, a faded liberal political operative who draws the Federal Court into her fantasy world where she dreams of making a triumphant return as Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.; 4/30/15, 2:18 PM
James Pawlak said...: The "Chief" who won was democracy!; 4/30/15, 2:36 PM
MarkW said...: "Didn't George Costanza just keep showing up for work even though he was fired?"

I know somebody who made that approach work. He got suspended from college for a semester due to low grades. But he just ignored the letter and registered for the next term--and nobody seemed to notice.; 4/30/15, 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Drill SGT said...

But absent a stay by the Federal Court, the majority of the Justices, backed by Walker, can ignore her can't they?

They can, but I believe the Chief Justice has some administrative authority over some activity in the judicial branch ( lesser appointments, case assignments, scheduling ). The people who carry out the orders need to know who has the authority to make the decisions.

That's easy: binding WI precedent says that a WI Constitutional Amendment takes effect as soon as the vote is certified. Unless and until Shirley wins in Federal Court, she's no longer Chief Justice; 4/30/15, 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann Althouse said...

"But absent a stay by the Federal Court, the majority of the Justices, backed by Walker, can ignore her can't they?"

Ignore what? What are you picturing her doing?

Well, her lawyer claims "she still believes she's CJ." So I envision her trying to carry out that role, sit in the CJ seat, issue orders that only the WI CJ can issue.

Because if she doesn't do that, she's effectively conceded her suit is BS. No?; 4/30/15, 3:41 PM
Wayne said...: "Ding dong, the bitch is gone!
Ding dong, the Wicked Bitch is gone!"

Shirley says, "I'm melting!"; 4/30/15, 4:00 PM
furious_a said...: ... Abrahamson continues to believe she is still chief justice

...like Ceaucescu believed he was still General Secretary before the squad leader yelled "FIRE!"; 4/30/15, 4:30 PM
furious_a said...: Chief Justice Abrahamson can flee to Illinois and set up a Supreme-Court-in-Exile at the nearest Tilted Kilt.

WHO'S WITH ME?!?; 4/30/15, 4:39 PM
RecChief said...: not one comment from Garage Mahal?

Did he forget to pay the ISP bill? is he sick?; 4/30/15, 6:54 PM
Rusty said...: She should add, " a crown".

" I want my my 5000 dollars a year and a crown! Im not leaving without my crown !"

As if the whole thing isn't comical enough.; 5/1/15, 6:00 AM
Gusty Winds said...: “[U]nless a constitutional amendment provides otherwise, it takes effect upon the certification of a statewide canvass of the votes,” - Then Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

STATE OF WISCONSIN V. ADAM GONZALES - 2002.; 5/1/15, 6:02 AM
Gusty Winds said...: STATE V. GONZALES 2002 -Then Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson

¶30 For these reasons we conclude that the legislature has the authority under Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution to adopt reasonable election laws such as Wis. Stat. § 7.70(3)(h) to provide that state constitutional amendments are effective after canvass and certification. We further conclude that pursuant to § 7.70(3)(h), Article I, Section 25 was not in effect on November 6, 1998, when the offense was committed. Accordingly, the defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of § 941.23 fails, and his conviction is affirmed.
By the Court.—The judgment and order are affirmed.; 5/1/15, 6:12 AM
Sharc said...: Too Many Cooks!
http://tinyurl.com/orr3n6c; 5/1/15, 6:21 AM
mikee said...: She can believe anything she wants in her private thoughts, but she can't act like the Chief Justice in public without drawing ridicule from the reality-based members of the court.; 5/1/15, 10:08 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: Patience Roggensack is a FANTASTIC name for a chief justice.

Abrahamson is coming off as a sad sack.; 5/1/15, 11:59 AM
PatHMV said...: In fairness to Justice Abrahamson (and I think it's important to be fair even to the looniest among us), her current position is not inconsistent with her ruling in the Gonzales case so often cited.

To the best of my understanding, she is not saying that a constitutional amendment, in general, cannot or does not become effective at the date of certification. Rather, she is saying that this particular amendment conflicts with another provision of the state constitution, a provision that the new amendment does not expressly repeal or amend. Therefore, proper interpretation requires assigning a later effective date to this current amendment in order to avoid the potential conflict.

Now, I think that position is itself an unreasonable interpretation, because I agree with our host that she was never elected to be "Chief" justice, only a justice, and therefore there is absolutely no conflict between the new amendment and the existing provision regarding reducing the salary of a judicial position while in office. But the position is not inconsistent with the Gonzales case.; 5/1/15, 12:19 PM
Gusty Winds said...: The certification of the ammendment created a vacancy now filled with a new Chief Justice. She and Bradley are arguing no vacancy exists.

This, then, relative to Gonzales shows the imbalance between the former Chief Justice's goose and gander.; 5/1/15, 6:08 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Once the ammendment was certified, Justice Abrahamson no longer met the Constitutional requirement to be Chief Justice. The seniority requirement was replaced by the approval / votes of the majority of the court. Therefore the certification created the vacancy consistent with Justice Abrahamson's opinion in Gonzales.

The position is now held by the new Chief Justice who meets the requirement of the certified ammendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution.

The irony of her opinion in Gonzales vs. her current hypocrisy illustrates further why her replacement is necessary.

I can imagine she's quite pissed off.; 5/1/15, 6:35 PM