Where have all the good gummint goo-goos gone?
It is curious that the Progressive Left seeks to neuter Justice Clarence Thomas, allegedly because some of his wealthy friends invite him to their fishing lodges — though they have no cases before the court. Because the man decides cases as an originalist and textualist the Left fights By Any Means Necessary. The Sunday New York Times, no less, devoted its top of Page One headline to the mission. (“Clarence Thomas’ clerks‘ … reach and power.”)
You want corruption, my progressive acquaintances? You own it:
1) Bought and paid for. Democrats — the party and front groups like A Better Wisconsin Together — invested $10 million into the candidacy of Janet (spell it with me) Protasiewicz for certain (ahem) deliverables. So far, yawns from the good gummint goo goos and the partisan news media.
“The parties interested in Justice Protasiewicz’s election are intricately involved with, and beneficiaries of, the case they filed directly before her in this original action right after she was sworn in. Their timing of selecting her as their judge and then bringing this petition is irrefutable.”
— Chief Justice Annette Ziegler in dissent.
2) Pre-judged. At a candidate forum hosted by WisPolitics, then- candidate Protasiewicz indicated that she entered the race because she “could not sit back and watch extreme right-wing partisans hijack our Supreme Court” and remarked, “let’s be clear here, the maps are rigged . . . bottom line, absolutely, positively rigged.” All before a challenge was even filed? Or had she worked with the claimants beforehand? Inquiring journalist don’t care to know!
3) Contiguity. In the last thrilling episode, we discussed “contiguity” — the fragile hook upon which the Protasiewicz court ordered redistricting.
In the multiple legal cases that resulted in the current legislative maps, none of the parties made the case that the maps were unconstitutional due to contiguity. Previous cases ruled that “Contiguity for state assembly districts is satisfied when a district boundary follows the municipal boundaries. Municipal ‘islands’ are legally contiguous with the municipality to which the ‘island’ belongs.” That’s stare decisis!
With its first opinion as an openly progressive faction, the members of the majority shed their robes, usurp the prerogatives of the legislature, and deliver the spoils to their preferred political party. These handmaidens of the Democratic Party trample the rule of law, dishonor the institution of the judiciary, and undermine democracy. The outcome in this case was preordained with the April 2023 election of a candidate who ran on a platform of “taking a fresh look” at the “rigged” maps.
— Justice Rebecca Bradley in dissent
4) Standing. None of the litigants lived in the non-contiguous town “islands” the court majority condemned, much less demonstrated any harm. You must have standing to bring a case to court. In a normal court, anyway.
5) Consultants. Who are they? The establishment news media seems not to care. According to the dissent of Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, the progressive majority hired “out-of-state, not stipulated to, unreviewable consultants who are seemingly unaccountable to anyone but the court of four.”
It is these “consultants” who likely will draw the next map.
6) “We will consider partisan impact when evaluating remedial maps,” Justice Jill Karofsky vows for the 4-member majority. Yet, the concept is found nowhere in state or federal constitutions.
Justice Ziegler is scathing: “The new majority seems to assume that their job is to remedy “rigged” maps which cause an “inability to achieve a Democratic majority in the state legislature. … They provide no measurable standard for calculating it. Apparently then, it is for them to know, and for us to find out!”
7) Timing. Justice Ziegler notes that “Almost every legislator in the state will need to respond, with lightning speed, to the newly minted maps, deciding if they can or want to run, and scrambling to find new candidates for new districts. All of this remains unknown until the court of four, and its hired ‘consultants,’ reveal the answer.”
Consider that any new legislative boundaries must be in place in time for primary elections in August. If past practice means anything (a fair question these days!) candidates were given between April 15 and June 1 to get on the 2022 ballot.
Blaska’s Bottom Line: Anyone think the new maps will be ready in four months? Our guess is that the mystery “consultants” have already drawn their maps for the Protasiewicz court, counting on the inability of a Republican legislature and a Democrat(ic) governor to agree on anything.
12 responses to “7 reasons Janet Protasiewicz should be impeached”
[…] This post originally appeared at https://davidblaska.com/2023/12/26/7-reasons-janet-protasiewicz-should-be-impeached/ […]
Minor quibble: it’s Karofsky, not AW Bradley, who authored the majority opinion, and telegraphed consideration of partisanship. More importantly, the invocation of this factor is openly mocking and cynical:
“¶69 Fifth, we will consider partisan impact when evaluating remedial maps. When granting the petition for original action that commenced this case, we declined to hear the issue of whether extreme partisan gerrymandering violates the Wisconsin Constitution. As such, we do not decide whether a party may challenge an enacted map on those grounds. …
¶71 It bears repeating that courts can, and should, hold themselves to a different standard than the legislature regarding the partisanship of remedial maps. As a politically neutral and independent institution, we will take care to avoid selecting remedial maps designed to advantage one political party over another. Importantly, however, it is not possible to remain neutral and independent by failing to consider partisan impact entirely. As the Supreme Court recognized in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 753 (1973), “this politically mindless approach may produce, whether intended or not, the most grossly gerrymandered results.” As such, partisan impact will necessarily be one of many factors we will consider in adopting remedial legislative maps, and like the traditional districting criteria discussed above, consideration of partisan impact will not supersede constitutionally mandated criteria such as equal apportionment or contiguity.”
(Politically neutral and independent? Seriously?)
Yes, stupid mistake. Corrected.
Great blog post!!!!!!!
I think I’ve asked this question before but I don’t remember the answer…
In the State of Wisconsin do we Impeach a Justice or Recall them?
CF comes to mind.
Sure, feel free to make the case for impeachment. But to throw in a defense of Thomas?!
Which is it? Do you want to hold a consistent standard for judicial conduct or not? Great turn of the pen to say “the left” would have to support Protasiewicz’s impeachment to remain ideologically consistent, but then avoid turning that argument around towards yourself, the Cons, and Thomas.
So lame to vilify “the progressive left” for the exact same thing you are doing. You tell “the left” to “own it” but take no ownership yourself. You accuse “the left” of fighting “by any means necessary” but are pleased as a peach when Vos, Alito, or any other Con finds creative (to be generous) ways to impose their will on us.
what nonsense. What did Thomas do wrong except enjoy friends who have no biz before the courts?
Your talking-point-regurgitation would lead to allowing rich people to “befriend” judges at all levels of the US judiciary and shower them with unlimited, undisclosed gifts. They could even arrange a formal adopt-a-judge program, where individual donors would pair with individual judges and buy their “friend” anything they’d like. Then they could avoid having that individual donor’s specific cases in front of that specific judge – but still get the benefit of the program 😉 which is essentially what is happening with Thomas. If you believe that rich people are disinterested in Supreme Court rulings simply because they are not the plaintiff or defendant I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s bad enough that our politicians are all bought and paid for. I guess why not the judiciary while we’re at it…
Again, absolutely pitiful that this blog and commenters are gleefully jumping into the race to the bottom. Cons say the judiciary is biased, but instead of reducing bias they add more bias “their way”. Cons say the media is biased, but instead of reducing bias they add more bias “their way”. Cons say elections are rigged, but instead of improving them they try to rig them “their way”…. I could go on.
Yes, Rollie, please do. But substitute “Lib” for “Con” and at least you’ll be in the ballpark. You could also add that Libs protest in front of people’s homes when they don’t get their way, that they block airports and highways when they don’t get their way, they threaten to kill people when they don’t get their way not to mention fire bombing establishments that don’t carry the line. Honestly your moral compass is so broken it’s not even fixable any longer!
good post Rollie. half that court are a bunch of lying dirtbags .
[…] ← 7 reasons Janet Protasiewicz should be impeached […]