Good riddance, Shirley Abrahamson

Den mother of the speech police

Top SecretMatt Kittle for MacIver News adds some much-needed balance to the saccharine idolatry showered on retiring Wisconsin supreme court Justice Shirley Abrahamson, champion of the regulatory state and den mother of the speech police. 

Most particularly embarrassing is Judy Davidoff’s hagiography in Isthmus. Encomiums from John Nichols, Jim Doyle, Tony Evers, and the Notorious RBG.

Kittle notes that Abrahamson’s fingerprints are all over the so-called “John Doe II” investigation, a politically charged probe into dozens of conservative organizations launched by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a highly partisan Democrat.  

It was Abrahamson who appointed the original judge overseeing the Doe. Judge Barbara Kluka approved scores of subpoenas on the same day she was conducting a jury trial. She was eventually relieved of her duties in favor of Judge Gregory Peterson who ordered a halt to the implementation of further search warrants — the first of four courts to put a stop to John Doe 2.


“The John Doe was despicable and indefensible. I think those are (Abrahamson’s) defining traits in that case. We had regular citizens whose homes had been raided, whose property had been taken, and for what? Because someone alleged there was a campaign finance law they didn’t like?” 
— former state legislator Adam Jarchow.

Kittle writes:

In 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority declared the probe, launched in August 2012, unconstitutional. The ruling, written by Justice Michael Gableman, noted that the government officials involved, “Instigated a ‘perfect storm of wrongs,’” on people who were “wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.” 

Abrahamson wrote the dissenting opinion, asserting the “majority opinion adopts an unprecedented and faulty interpretation of Wisconsin’s campaign finance law and of the First Amendment.” …

The justice’s defense of Wisconsin’s “labyrinthian” campaign finance laws was not shared by multiple courts, including a previous federal court decision. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes described Wisconsin’s campaign finance system as a “dizzying array of statutes and rules” that are “labyrinthian and difficult to decipher.”

Money IS speech, folks. (Just as money is transportation, shelter, and food.) If journalists like Nichols and Davidoff won’t give you a fair shake, you’ve got to buy your own media.

What Matt Kittle does not report is that Shirley has been the source of discord for virtually her entire 30-year tenure. Even former Democrats like the late Bill Bablitch, an associate justice, said so.

Blaska’s Bottom Line: There is justice, after all. Shirley Abrahamson will be replaced by Brian Hagedorn, who won election despite being deserted by the usual conservative heavy hitters. Truly, a people’s victory.

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in John Doe, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Good riddance, Shirley Abrahamson

  1. dad29 says:

    despite being deserted by the usual conservative heavy hitters

    Actually, Libertarian hitters, which is to say ‘NOT conservative.’ Don’t like calling them LIbertarians? Well, then, take “Opportunists.”

    Like

  2. Dan B. says:

    Wait you mean to tell me a bunch of establishment men have a beef with a pioneering woman elbowing her way into their field? Never heard of that before! The difference between you and the justice is that she was successful and is beloved.

    Like

    • madisonexpat says:

      The fact that Justice Hagedorn, a conservative, will take her chair is a nice stroke of Karma for Shirley to mull over in retirement.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dan B. says:

        If Hagedorn has a fraction of the career Abrahamson had, he’ll be very fortunate. She’s a giant, he’s a footnote. The only reason you dislike her is because she doesn’t agree with your narrow and old-fashioned view of the world and she had the temerity to claim power as a woman, which you likely find “bossy” or otherwise unattractive. I’m positive she couldn’t care less what you or Blaska or the other dinosaurs like you think. She will retire to have in-depth conversations with brilliant people while you argue with your wife about throwing out the old hoses you’re hoarding in your foul-smelling garage.

        Like

        • madisonexpat says:

          Project much? You know as much about why I dislike anything or anyone as you know about my garage. Hoses? Hoser.

          Like

        • @Dan B.;

          Mercy me, Hell hath no fury like a Lefty’s scorn, am I right?

          And why the angry, spittle-flecked slobbering? You fresh off arguing with your wife about YOUR foul-smelling, old hose…
          The Gotch

          Like

    • JT says:

      Dan B:: Delusional Much! She Was Nothing But A Judicial Activist With Total Disregard For The Unbiased Application Of Law! She Is A Blatant Embarrassment To The The Rule Of Law The Supreme Court Is Supposed Uphold Without Political Prejudice! She Walks Away I Disgrace For Her Horrendous Unethical Behavior In The John Doe Cases! [EDITED]!

      Like

      • AnonyBob says:

        Nothing says RWNJ “sound and fury signifying nothing” like Unnecessarily Capitalizing Every Word And Then Pounding The X Key.

        Like

  3. Batman says:

    Word on the street is that SWAT is planning a pre-dawn raid (date unspecified) on Abrahamson’ residence to discover if she absconded with any state owned office supplies.

    Karma…

    Like

    • richard lesiak says:

      You shouldn’t be walking the streets at night batdung haven’t you read all of blaska’s posts about rampaging gangs.

      Like

  4. madisonexpat says:

    Those labyrinthian laws and numerous regulations didn’t write themselves. That Nazi Chisholm did no worse than Bob Muellar did to Alex Stone. It is lawfare, it is prosecutorial abuse and it should result, at minimum in disbarment. Their victims were Nifonged, aptly named after another famously woke Nazi prosecutor.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. AnonyBob says:

    Those “labyrinthine” laws and rules were understood and observed by those who operated in that world, especially at the higher levels. You had to bend and break them to attract the attention of a prosecutor.
    And, really Dave, “people who were “wholly innocent of any wrongdoing”? Long-time Republican campaign operatives all. You can repeat that quote that with a straight face?

    Like

  6. madisonexpat says:

    No ABob, those labyrinthian laws were either written by incompetents or by evil doers who could “interpret” them to attack their political opponents. Laws, like military orders, must be clear. But hey! To partisan political hacks its always “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    Like

    • AnonyBob says:

      Splat, you’ve clearly had no campaign experience in Wisconsin. You clearly know absolutely nothing about this.

      Like

      • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

        @AnonyBob;

        “you’ve clearly had no campaign experience in Wisconsin.”

        Too funny! @madisonexpat is juuuuust like the lyin’ thievin’ decevin’ Hillarity in that respect, am I right?

        The Gotch

        Like

  7. madisonexpat says:

    Anyone that cannot write a law so that it is understood by a literate citizen is incompetent or corrupt. But then no one on the Left can understand the Constitution can they. unless perhaps they are emanations from a penumbra.

    Like

    • AnonyBob says:

      Define “literate citizen.” I can’t help you if the language of the law goes over your head (that’s when you get a lawyer – there are plenty of them in politics). Laws and rules are drafted by professionals who are neither incompetent nor corrupt. Everyone who worked in that world understood the them; this group just chose to break them.

      Like

      • madisonexpat says:

        Any American who can vote and read at a high school graduate level.
        Any fool can and must complicate things. It takes clear thinking to simplify any thing.

        Like

      • dad29 says:

        Anony, about SEVEN courts found that they did NOT ‘break laws.’ Expat is right; if a HS grad cannot understand the laws, the lawmakers are at fault. That’s a principle of English common law which happens to be derived from antiquity. It’s ignored, of course, because “lawyers.”

        The presence of lawyers is NOT a blessing; the multiplication of them is a curse, indeed.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dad29 says:

      incompetent or corrupt
      Why do you exclude “both”?

      Like

      • madisonexpat says:

        They generally start as the former and become the latter.

        Like

      • AnonyBob says:

        You boys don’t seem to know how laws get made and are confusing drafters with lawmakers. Drafters, neither corrupt nor incompetent, write laws in legalese because it is precise and exact; if that makes statutes too hard for Dad and Splat to read, well boo hoo, that’s on you. Get a professional, AKA a lawyer. Do you get a surgeon, or curse that operations are just too hard for anyone to do themselves?
        And Dad, too many lawyers (and questionable court rulings) are what let Walker and his fellow scofflaws elude justice.
        Oh Lord, spare us from the libertarians and their disdain of any institution. Please let them live off the grid and far, far away from from the rest of us in civilization.

        Like

        • George's Son says:

          So… A-Bob -Finally you admit that you do not understand much about life w/out legal help -“AKA a lawyer”. Most of the rest of us just use common-sense….

          Like

        • AnonyBob says:

          GeoJr: having trouble tracking the conversation?

          Like

        • madisonexpat says:

          If you think legalese is exact and precise then you’ve never read legalese, never read a contract or a lease. The intent of legalese is to complicate and obfuscate. On the other hand, read our founding documents. They are simple, precise and understandable to near elegance.
          And yes, we libertarians resist you channeling your inner authoritarian.

          Like

  8. madisonexpat says:

    And the first thing that drew me to a Trump candidacy was that he is not a lawyer and not married to one.

    Like

  9. dad29 says:

    How many words in the 10 Commandments?

    OK, then. How many in WI Statutes?–and don’t they both have the same ends?

    Like

  10. madisonexpat says:

    I am struck by these three things; ABob’s belief that laws are best (or only) understood by the higher up and better politicians. ABob and his ilk thought that about the Obama administration too.
    Reread “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” The hucksters that got all the higher and best politicians oohing and aahing over the new threads by saying that only liars and incompetents could not see the glorious raiments.
    Until a little boy said, “the emperor is naked.”

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s