Thursday, June 16, 2011

Judicial Hacktivists; "Republicons are Above the Law"

Not that I had much faith in the impartial justice of Supreme Courts anyway, that has been shown repeatedly since Bush V Gore to be unwarranted in 21st century America, but the decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Kangaroo Kourt that the legislature need not follow the law, lays bare once again the judicial hacktivism of the Republicons.

When you control the executive branchg and the legislature and you've packed the court with Robed Reactionaries who've got your back you can enact any radical agenda you want with no checks and no balances. Republicons are a$$holes it's just that simple.

The very fact that the court decided to take this case and issued a decision on the same day, without even having the facts or oral arguments presented shows that the the predetermined fix was in. This should be no suprise with moral miscreants like Gabbleman and Ziegler polluting the bench no to mention the vindictive partisan Prosser who is clearly unfit in judicial temperment to serve. Democracy my ass!

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a scathing dissent of the judicial "process" that you can access here: It starts on page 31. Excerpts are below.

¶79 In rendering a decision, a court is to provide not merely an answer but also a reasoned, accurate explanation. A reasoned, accurate explanation is not an inconsequential nicety that this court may disregard for the sake of convenience or
haste. It is the cornerstone of the legitimacy of judicial
¶80 At first glance, the order appears to provide some support for broad conclusions reached on fundamental and complex issues of law. But on even casual reading, the explanations are clearly disingenuous, based on disinformation.
¶81 Justice Prosser's concurrence is longer than the order. The concurrence consists mostly of a statement of happenings. It is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling
that appears to have a partisan slant. Like the order, the concurrence reaches unsupported conclusions.
¶82 In hastily reaching judgment, Justice Patience D. Roggensack, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman author an order, joined by Justice David T. Prosser, lacking a reasoned, transparent analysis and incorporating numerous errors of law and fact. This kind of order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision.

¶90 The legislature must play by the rules of the Wisconsin Constitution and the laws.
¶91 Playing by the rules and playing fair are integral to public trust and confidence in our government officials—— legislative, executive, and judicial. Public trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch is engendered
by a court's issuing a reasoned public decision based on public records after public arguments. The judicial branch claims legitimacy by the reasoning of its decisions. "Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification."4
¶92 Trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch as an institution is critical at all times but especially when a case has high public visibility, is mired in partisan politics, and is emotionally charged. The need for reasoned judgment is at its greatest in a case such as this one, in which substantial public policy and budgetary decisions of the coordinate branches may be affected.5 The issues presented in this case are steeped in a politically charged environment and
involve highly controversial public policy and budgetary matters.
¶93 That the judiciary has the power of judicial review, that is, the power to interpret the Constitution and hear challenges to the constitutionality of legislative enactments, without pressure from the executive or legislative branches, is a fundamental principle of the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions.
¶94 This fundamental principle of judicial review was described in Federalist No. 78,6 which emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and of an independent judiciary to ensure that legislative enactments are consistent with the
¶95 Ascertaining the meaning of the Wisconsin Constitution and whether the enactment of the Budget Repair Bill complies with constitutional directives is the essence of the present case. And the court must do so adhering to the Constitution,
laws, and its own rules of procedure.
¶96 The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law. They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891. This case law recognizes a court's power to review legislative actions in enacting laws when constitutional directives are at issue.

No comments: