Voting Rights - A 50 State Strategy!

The Fifty-State Strategy: In light of the Robed Reactionary Judicial Hactivists on the U.S. Extreme Court gutting voting protections from the Voting Rights Act and knowing that the Republicon traitors are intent on enacting voter suppression laws in every state of the union, the Democrats need to adopt a fifty state strategy!

Instead of updating and fixing the Voting Rights Act as it was formulated, focused on the Jim Crow states of the south, the Democratic Party needs to put forth federal legislation that protects the voting rights of All Americans in Every State, TODAY, from the Neo-Jim Crow GOPsters. Keenly aware that demographics are against them and their Corporate Sponsors, the Republicons will Hiss and Writhe at this idea and they will fight it with all the Venomous Malice they can Muster.

Let them! Let these Pseudo-patriots expose their Fangs and openly oppose the right of All American Citizens to Vote and see where that gets them!

Let's see the Democratic Party do something ballsy, smart and quite frankly, Patriotically American and step down hard on the necks of these Vipers and make their Forked Tongues Loll!

Tuesday Afternoon

Tuesday, afternoon,
I'm just beginning to see,
Now I'm on my way,
It doesn't matter to me,
Chasing the clouds away.

Something, calls to me,
The trees are drawing me near,
I've got to find out why
Those gentle voices I hear
Explain it all with a sigh.

The GOPsters didn't want to have to vote on the union busting bill again because it's deeply unpopular with the public, would have caused a new round of protests and would have provided a kickoff reminder as to why we want to recall the A$$holes in the upcoming elections. Well they didn't have to because the judicial hacktivists on the wingnut packed Wisconsin Supreme Kangaroo Kourt did the bidding of their political masters showing again the lie that is "justice" and the "independent judiciary".

Jeff Fitzgerald: "If need be, we are going to have to pass collective bargaining again because it is such an integral part of not having those services slashed and those people laid off," Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said of the plan, which is currently held up in court. Fitzgerald said he expects the state Assembly to take up the $66 billion two-year spending plan on Tuesday and will add collective bargaining limits as an amendment if the Supreme Court fails to act on the plan by Tuesday afternoon. The court last week heard oral arguments on whether a legislative conference committee violated the state's open meetings law when it rushed passage of the provision in March. "I'm an optimist. I still think they might rule yet," Fitzgerald said. "They still have some time." http://www.wiscnews.com/bdc/news/local/article_8f58d97a-963c-11e0-8fe9-001cc4c002e0.html

When did the Judicial Hacktivists act? TUESDAY AFTERNOON!

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: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1297191 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
decision-making.
¶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
constitution.
¶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.

JoAnne Kloppenburg In Racine Today!

The Candidate for Supreme Court will be in Racine on Monday April 4th for a whistle-stop rally. 11:30 am at Racine's Monument Square. Be there and tell your friends!

Prosser Not Fit To Be Dog Catcher!

Stating that Prosser has lost the "even-handed impartiality" that is an essential asset for any judge, Lucey said in a statement issued Thursday evening. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119033134.html Prosser also has displayed "a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the high court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility." Kloppenburg, on the other hand, has adhered throughout her campaign to both even-handedness and non-partisanship, Lucey said. The chair of Prosser's campaign is former Republican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson. In a response issued Thursday night, Prosser said he was disappointed with Lucey's decision but his respect and admiration for the former governor remain unchanged. IT GETS EVEN WORSE! Any sense that Prosser is impartial and judicious is ludicrous. the fact of the matter is that he is a vidictive A$$hole willing to use his seat on the People's bench to punish political opponents. This man is not fit to serve as dog catcher: http://blog.wisdc.org/2010/12/prossers-pitch.html Below is a letter account of Prosser's threat, made anonymously due to fear of retribution: I am writing to you anonymously to inform you of comments that were made by Justice Prosser in his stump speech to Wisconsin Association for Justice at its board meeting on December 2, 2010. In his comments, Justice Prosser indicated that he wished the trial lawyers to know that if the race led to him being attacked from the "left," that he would move to the right and the trial lawyers would suffer for it. He stated that it would be in the best interest of the trial lawyers if he stayed in the middle. In fact, he said "don't force me to run a campaign that is not down the middle and honorable." When asked to explain that, he indicated that if the left demonizes him, it will push him to the right. He said he would do whatever was necessary and would side with those who were supporting him so he would not be retired as a Justice. It was evident to those in the room that he was issuing a threat that if he was not supported by the trial lawyers, then they could expect that the decisions he renders will be against the interests that the trial lawyers espouse on behalf of injured consumers. It appears clear by his comments that he would prejudge any issue that came against him from someone who did not support him in the campaign. It should be noted that Justice Prosser's comments to the Wisconsin Association for Justice had been made privately to other individuals who reported that he was contacting them for support. In his contact, he would indicate that if he was not supported by those on what he considers the "left," he would move to the right in his decision making if he were to be re-elected. He further indicated that he wished he didn't have to do that but would do so if necessary so that he would be re-elected. These comments are not in keeping with the judicial code of ethics. These are clearly questionable campaign tactics for someone who seeks to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Sincerely, A Concerned Attorney