Justice Karofsky plays race card
Funny thing about conservative jurists: they read the law and apply the constitution as it was written, not how they wish it written. Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh proved it Friday 12-11-20 in turning down the Texas challenge to the results in four states, including ours. At the state level, so has Justice Brian Hagedorn proven his fair and impartial jurisprudence.
Then there are liberal activists posing as judges, like Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky. Her performance Saturday 12-12-20 during oral argument in Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden was disgraceful. It reminds us of Chuck Chvala at his partisan worst — only not as intelligent.
“This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism, and I do not know how you can come before this court and possibly ask us for a remedy that is unheard of in American history,” Karofsky said. “This is not normal.”
Karofsky could not understand why the plaintiff, President Trump, would challenge the conduct of Wisconsin’s election after the election. Trump attorney Jim Troupis patiently explained that there would have been no injury to his client before an election — nor any after a flawed election had he prevailed. (In any event, some of those last-minute changes WERE challenged.)
Trump’s case in Wisconsin (very much simplified) was that black letter law on how to conduct an election was tucked and trimmed pretty much on the fly, with the Covid pandemic as the rationale. For instance, many absentee ballots lacked the obligatory proof of identity under the rubric of “indefinitely confined.” Allowing votes to be harvested in “Democracy in the Park” locales early, before the statutory early voting period began or at the clerk’s office where there is presumed to be more security.
“The statues are in place because if you do not follow these provisions there is [the presumption of] fraud,” Troupis explained.
Karofsky went well beyond jurisprudential skepticism into partisan polemic. Toward the end of one hour and 37 minutes of oral arguments, she launched into a tirade more suited to a rabble-rousing politician than a supreme court jurist. Our transcription:
I cannot believe you are going to accuse our fellow Wisconsinites of engaging in fraud in this election. The people of Wisconsin should be thanked for exercising their civic duty … to vote. … We should be thanking them, we should be thanking the election workers, the poll workers, and the canvass workers and local officials who soldiered on during a global pandemic. In this state we accept the will of the voters and they spoke. For you to come forward today and throw out allegations of fraud with zero evidence! [she trailed off.]
What is America? … It is not governance from a king. You want us to overturn this election so that your king can stay in power and that is so un-American. For you to say anyone in Wisconsin engaged in fraud … for you to perpetuate that fallacy … in what has been called the most significant election in our life time, is nothing short of shameful.
Troupis countered: “I believe this country was founded on the principle of the rule of law. When we forget the rule of law when we forget to enforce mandatory statutes we have lost our freedom.”