- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
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 must log in or # to comment.
Conservatives are working together to normalize the language of sedition ahead of Trump’s trails and the election.
They want us to stop paying attention to words like coup.
Every accusation like this is an admission of intent.
Not intent.
Mode of operation.
It’s what they were doing until the voters got fed up.
So projection of sorts.
The right is masters of it.
Keep it in mind when one of them accuses the left of being pedophiles.
The way conservatives choose to use the word coup makes it clear that they don’t know what that word means. Given their opposition to education, their lack of literacy is no surprise.
They don’t know what a lot of words mean, but in this case I think she’s just following the advice of Goebbels and accusing the other side of what she’s doing.
They always do this. They always weaponize words with powerful meanings without understanding or caring about the meanings. They just know the elicit a strong negative emotional response and that’s all they care about.
It’s worse than that. They both get the advantage of its venomous effect, and dilute its effect in the future. A coup used to be a major thing. Now, the word is thrown around all over the place. It’s only if you actually pay attention, you realise that one side is using it legitimately, while the other makes no sense. All most people hear is the newest buzz word insult, and tune it out.
Of course they do. It’s a common and effective propaganda instrument to lessen the effectiveness of the word so people take it less seriously when it’s used in the correct context. By underestimating their intelligence and cunning you are actually playing right into their hands.
I saw a headline on Fox news the other day that said something like “State police drive into greeniac barricade” the other day. I had to look up greeniac but it is a coded term to make climate protestors seem insane. Fuck these propagandists.
They want to water it down, just like Trump did with “Fake News.”
Around the time of the 2016 election, there was lots of coverage around literally-fake news sites targeting voters on social media. So Trump’s team adopted the 'Fake News" catchphrase to dilute the term and make people think it was a “both sides” issue.
Man, the republicans really don’t like it when the shoe’s on the other foot, huh.
They seem to believe that the power of elected officials is only vaild when they wield it.
The Democrats should sue over this, you can’t have a judge screaming “coup” every time they get outvoted. I’m sure a room full of judges can figure out what kind of law this is breaking, almost certainly there’s some kind of “incitement” law on the books.
Reading through the reported exchange, it sounds like someone wants to be Queen Bee, but was taken down a peg or two.
Boo hoo.
When conservatives take control, this kind of takeover is expected. When Democrats take control and do this, all of a sudden it’s an affront to justice and fair play. Fuck that. I hope the chief justice quits in disgust.
deleted by creator
Unscheduled unguided tour of the capital
*armed tour
I believe they have failed to recognize the Stare Decisis standard and the implications of the long held decision in Elections v. Consequences.
Fuck them and their gaslighting asses.
I know you are but what am I?
-Pee Wee Herman voice
RIPwee
“This is nothing short of an unprecedented coup. For 40 years, the role of the Chief Justice has been understood and respected.”
Says that lady who literally stole the chief position from her predecessor by changing the rules with checks notes the majority rule she is now decrying.
The irony here is soooo delicious.
No one should respect this clown Ziegler. Obviously partisan and anti democratic hack.
And a bitch.
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.
Parliamentary style rules for courts were always ridiculous and weakened trust in the judicial system, but they were ridiculous when she was elected chief justice in the first fucking place.
