Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice accuses liberal majority of staging a 'coup'
Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice accuses liberal majority of staging a 'coup'
The conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court told the new liberal majority in a scathing email that they had staged a “coup” when they voted recently to weaken her powers and hire a new director of state courts.
The conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday told the new liberal majority in a scathing email that they had staged a “coup” and conducted an “illegal experiment” when they voted to weaken her powers and fire the director of state courts.
Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, in two emails obtained by The Associated Press, said that firing and hiring a new state court director was illegal and ordered interim state court director Audrey Skwierawski to stop signing orders without her knowledge or approval.
You're viewing a single thread.
I hope people can admit that regardless of which political "side" judges are supporting, a judge allowing their political ideology to influence their decisions is a violation of their station. Judges are supposed to use their knowledge, expertise, and experience to rule on how our existing laws should be enforced, based on their original intent, sometimes in the context of circumstances their original authors didn't take into account. Obviously, the influence of one's political inclinations cannot be completely eliminated, but I feel like we've reached a point where judges—particularly those in our highest courts—are abusing their positions of power to advance their own political views. Sometimes, old laws do not make room for new circumstances, and new laws must be passed by legislative bodies instead of simply reinterpreting old laws for the convenience of modern times.
If our judges don't hold to these limitations and instead allow their political views to dictate their rulings, legal precedent ceases to have any meaning, and our laws will become nothing more than pendulums, the meaning of which will always depend on the justices in power at the time. This is not what the founders of our government intended and is no basis for a stable legal system regardless of their intent. This has to stop. If it continues, our legal system is steadily going to lose more and more credibility, and that is a surefire road to the disintegration of society into anarchy and war. This is exactly what our national enemies want.
Historically this is nothing new. Looking at SCOTUS alone, the Marshall court, the Taney court, and the Warren court are all examples of moments where the courts have moved jurisprudence in substantial ways based on ideology. You want justices that, for the most part, will exercise restraint and seek to interpret laws in good faith. I agree with that. But I think it’s important to know that courts have been ideological since the very beginning.
Fair point, which is why i conceded true ideological impartiality was impossible. Idk, maybe it's just me, but I'm 41 years old and I feel like partisanship in high courts in the U.S. has gotten much worse in the past decade or so.
This is exactly what our national enemies want.
Divide and conquer on steroids because of social media and LLMs.
Typical conservative response.
If you believed that, you wouldn't be voting for the right wing politicians.
I'm a liberal, and you're a disappointment.
Whatever helps you not change course
Uh... I'm genuinely curious how you got to that conclusion.
I'm not the person as you replied to, but I hope to introduce some additional information which might answer your question in case it was genuine.
The OP of this comment tree advocated for originalism ("based on their original intent") which up until about 20 years ago was generally considered incompatible with the responsibilities of a Judge. Typically, precedent is supposed to matter more than the laws original intent. Conservatives have been appointing originalists to the bench for a while now and it is leading to decisions like overturning Roe V. Wade. I can't do a good job explaining it in more detail, but you can search for "stare decisis vs originalism" to find more information. The results may be political so use your own intellectual filter.
It's possible that the OP didn't know that this is an originalists argument, but that's what the words currently state.