Althouse: Denying Shirley Abrahamson an injunction that would restore her to the position of Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court...

May 15, 2015

Denying Shirley Abrahamson an injunction that would restore her to the position of Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court...

... U.S. District Judge James Peterson found no irreparable harm because the new Chief Justice Patience Roggensack is "not consolidating power in any ruthless way."

25 comments:

JackOfVA said...: Shirley, You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run; 5/15/15, 2:16 PM
lemondog said...: Peterson said he sees no signs of Roggensack making any wholesale changes to the court's functions as chief justice. "She's not consolidating power in any ruthless way," Peterson said..

And if Patience was consolidating power in a ruthless way what would be an example?; 5/15/15, 2:48 PM
Big Mike said...: Maybe if Abrahamson was respectful to her fellow justices she could get her old job back.; 5/15/15, 2:50 PM
Gusty Winds said...: This is awesome, but what does the lack ruthless power consolidation have to do with it?

The voters approved a constitutional amendment, which is now certified. Done.; 5/15/15, 2:54 PM
mccullough said...: She can now appeal. It should be interesting; 5/15/15, 2:56 PM
Gusty Winds said...: lemondog said...

And if Patience was consolidating power in a ruthless way what would be an example?

Tire slashing.

Not inviting Shirley to an all Justice Party at the Roggensack residence.

Loud laughter and cheering being heard from Prosser's office.

Spearing a dead fish to her desk...

Posting copies of the State v. Gonzales on the walls of the women's bathroom...; 5/15/15, 2:59 PM
BarrySanders20 said...: What would be an example?

The way Shirley ran things.; 5/15/15, 3:09 PM
Gusty Winds said...: I don't understand why Shirley names her fellow Justices in the lawsuit. She should just sue the voters of Wisconsin that approved the amendment.; 5/15/15, 3:16 PM
Gusty Winds said...: From the Green Bay Gazette May 12.

"I am a staunch proponent of a fair, impartial, neutral and non-partisan judiciary to achieve the ideal of justice," Abrahamson said in the filing...

I wonder if judges laugh out loud or just roll their eyes when they read such obvious bullshit.; 5/15/15, 3:20 PM
Rob said...: Of course she's not being hasty about consolidating power. Her name is Patience.; 5/15/15, 3:24 PM
Thorley Winston said...: This is awesome, but what does the lack ruthless power consolidation have to do with it?

My understanding is that Judge Peterson ruled on Justice Abrahamson’s motion for a preliminary inunction to prevent Justice Patience from assuming the role of Chief Justice. Generally courts do not like to grant injunctions before the merits of the case are decided unless the party requesting the injunction can show that they would be severely or irreparably harmed while the court was deciding the matter.; 5/15/15, 3:25 PM
Gusty Winds said...: From the soft pedal Milwaukee Journal article:

At another point, he downplayed how Abrahamson's attorney characterized Roggensack's running of the court over the last two weeks.

"When you say she's consolidating power — this isn't North Korea," Peterson said.

So the claim of ruthless power consolidation came from an accusation laid down by Abrahamson's lawyer. The North Korea analogy from the judge seems to be a spank down.; 5/15/15, 3:28 PM
MikeR said...: Hard to understand this case. Don't laws take effect as soon as they are passed, unless they say otherwise? So starting right now, the Chief Justice is chosen by vote. Can't they vote whenever they want, unless the law say otherwise? For instance, couldn't they change their minds next month and pick a different Chief Justice?; 5/15/15, 3:34 PM
James Pawlak said...: I am surprised! A Federal Judge not overturning the will of the People.; 5/15/15, 3:36 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: MikeR said...

For instance, couldn't they change their minds next month and pick a different Chief Justice?

No. The amendment specifies a two year term of office. The old constitutional text did not have a term of office, so Abrahamson stopped being the chief justice the instant the amendment was certified, whether a new chief was voted in or not.; 5/15/15, 3:58 PM
Fabi said...: But Garage said he voted for the Chief Justice! lol; 5/15/15, 4:16 PM
lemondog said...: For instance, couldn't they change their minds next month and pick a different Chief Justice?

According to Wiki a majority vote for CJ is for a 2 year term.; 5/15/15, 4:17 PM
furious_a said...: And if Patience was consolidating power in a ruthless way what would be an example?

Choking Justice Bradley to free up a seat on the Bench.; 5/15/15, 4:20 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Since Shirley's lawsuit is absurd, Judge Peterson should have ended his decision with a smiley face.

:-); 5/15/15, 5:26 PM
Danno said...: furious_a said...
And if Patience was consolidating power in a ruthless way what would be an example?

"Choking Justice Bradley to free up a seat on the Bench."

I think since North Korea has already been mentioned by the federal judge, maybe having Abrahamson executed by antiaircraft gun for dozing at some earlier judicial proceedings might be appropriate.; 5/15/15, 8:21 PM
kcom said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/15/15, 8:39 PM
kcom said...: "I think since North Korea has already been mentioned by the federal judge, maybe having Abrahamson executed by antiaircraft gun for dozing at some earlier judicial proceedings might be appropriate."

If John Roberts did that to Justice Bader Ginsburg (perhaps for getting tipsy) would that be an example of Ruthlessly consolidating power?; 5/15/15, 8:41 PM
Fabi said...: 'Ruthlessly'. Very clever, kcom.; 5/15/15, 8:45 PM
Largo said...: kcom: Kudos!; 5/16/15, 1:39 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Q: Surely, you must consider this a legal setback in your attempt to recapture your position as Chief Justice, don't you?

SA: I certainly don't - and don't call me Shirley.; 5/16/15, 7:36 PM