Wisconsin GOP Gonna IMPEACH Justice Janet Protasiewicz For High Crime Of Public Liberalness
She can stay as long as she sits in a corner and doesn't vote on anything.
Wisconsin Republicans have talked about impeaching Justice Janet Protasiewicz ever since she won April’s state supreme court election. Protasiewicz is a liberal who’ll probably make liberal rulings and Republicans just can’t have it. They are not very good at democracy.
Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has demanded that Protasiewicz recuse herself from all cases where she might’ve expressed a general opinion on the subject. This is obviously an absurd standard that conservative justices are not expected to uphold. Protasiewicz’s far-right opponent and former justice himself Daniel Kelly literally worked for an anti-abortion group, and we doubt Vos would’ve expected him to recuse from every abortion case that came before the court.
We repeat: These are overtly partisan elections, which Republicans normally love in states like North Carolina and, yes, Wisconsin because they can turn out the vote with typical partisan appeals. This isn’t a Senate confirmation where conservative nominees can just obfuscate and outright lie. Voters expect to hear what candidates believe about relevant issues.
During an interview last month with WSAU Radio, Vos said it’s obvious that Protasiewicz can’t function as an impartial judge on certain issues. For instance, she’s referred to Wisconsin’s jacked-up electoral maps as “rigged,” which they are. Take the Wisconsin Assembly — please! — where in the last election Democrats won 54 percent of the vote, and yet Republicans won 63 of the 99 seats, nearly a supermajority.
“They do not reflect people in this state. I don’t think you could sell any reasonable person that the maps are fair,” Protasiewicz said at a January campaign forum. “I can't tell you what I would do on a particular case, but I can tell you my values, and the maps are wrong."
This is a reasonable position, as judges should rule on the law, not their personal opinions. It’s also silly to suggest that members of the supreme court, who can still vote in elections and even read the newspaper, don’t have opinions on political matters. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito won’t shut up about his political positions.
Nonetheless, Vos whined to conservative host Meg Ellefson, “If there’s any semblance of honor on the state supreme court left, you cannot have a person who runs for the court prejudging a case and being open about it, and then acting on the case as if you're an impartial observer.”
Vos later conceded that “the idea that we're going to immediately start an impeachment process is probably too radical.” However … “I want to look and see, does she recuse herself on cases where she is prejudged? That to me is something that is at the oath of office and what she said she was going to do to uphold the constitution. That, to me, is a serious offense.”
It’s not a “serious offense.” It’s not even an offense with a sad clown face. A Wisconsin supreme court justice has been impeached “for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors” just once, in 1853, and he was later acquitted. Although Republicans have enough votes in the state Senate to remove Protasiewicz if she’s impeached, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would just replace her with another liberal. In theory, this seems like a lot of bluster, but in sinister practice Republicans could effectively marginalize Protasiewicz.
The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes, who knows what evil lurks in his former party, laid out how Republicans could get their way with what we’ll call the Mitch McConnell Maneuver.
Under Wisconsin’s constitution, after the Assembly vote, the justice would be immediately suspended. “No judicial officer shall exercise his office, after he shall have been impeached, until his acquittal.”
But — and here’s the rub — the state’s senate GOP has no intention of holding any trial, or taking any vote on the impeachment. There will be no conviction. Or acquittal.
As a result, Protasiewicz would be in a sort of permanent limbo. The court, which is already thoroughly dysfunctional, would be deadlocked 3-3.
“This is actually a more potent tool to dismantle the liberal majority by having an impeachment vote in the Assembly, which is just a majority vote, and then having the Senate do nothing. She basically is removed from office and can’t rule on any cases,” said David Canon, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Protasiewicz could go down fighting — rule to reject the rigged maps and resign so Evers could replace her — but the new justice would have to stand for re-election again in spring 2024.
It’s clear, though, that Republicans must lose this unearned supermajority. Otherwise, Wisconsin will remain a failed state.
[The Bulwark / PBS]
Follow Stephen Robinson on Bluesky and Threads.
Subscribe to his YouTube channel for more fun content.
Catch SER on his podcast, The Play Typer Guy.
OT, but juicy
Judge sez second defamation suit against TFG by E Jean Carroll will only be to determine damages, not retry the case. A few mill more out of his tattered pockets.
“𝙉𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙚𝙭𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚, 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙙, 𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙡 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙖𝙡.”
Ah! There's our loophole. It says HIS acquittal. Protasiewicz is a SHE! We wouldn't want to confuse those, now, would we, GOP? That would be WOKE!