National Review's Jeffrey Blehar is unhappy about the victory of liberal Janet Protasiewicz in Wisconsin's supreme court race:
The rollback of the significant Tea Party-era gains made by the GOP in the state now seems, if not foreordained, then on the horizon. Democrats have seized control of the state Supreme Court — once held by conservative justices 5–2 during the Scott Walker era — and look set to undo the state’s abortion law and legislative map, and may even threaten Act 10, Walker’s signature legislative achievement.
The Wisconsin supreme court is now under 4-3 liberal control. This small change means that Wisconsin's wildly extreme Republican gerrymandering will probably be moderated, which in turn means there's at least a fighting chance that Democrats can someday win control of the legislature. It also means that Wisconsin is unlikely to overturn the 2024 election results in favor of Donald Trump, something that was a real possibility if the court had remained in conservative hands. Also, the court will probably now overturn Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban and remain a state where abortion is freely available.
That's a lot riding on a single supreme court justice in one state.
Wisconsin also has a special state senate election, still too close to call, which could cement a 2/3 Republican majority which might well result in the preemptive impeachment of Protasiewicz.
In other news, erstwhile labor organizer Brandon Johnson will be the next mayor of Chicago. Let's go Brandon!
That's what I was worried about as well. With a two-thirds majority, they could do a lot to sabotage the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
No, they can't. See Wisconsin Constitution. Article VII, Section 13
"Any justice or judge may be removed from office by address of both houses of the legislature, if two thirds of all the members elected to each house concur therein, but no removal shall be made by virtue of this section unless the justice or judge complained of is served with a copy of the charges, as the ground of address, and has had an opportunity of being heard."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000233/000014
Republicans have a 2/3 majority in the Senate but not in the Assembly.
Thanks for the info.
Yup, lot riding on this - for all of us, not just Wisconsin.
I come from a state where the legislature is primed to kick out three Democrats (google Tennessee legislature). it's nice to hear some good news tonight.
It *is* a lot riding on one court seat in one state, and our generation's shame that a corrupted, politicized third branch of government has to be rescued so that the laws can actually have a fighting chance to reflect what majorities think best.
We need another word for the people who have been doing this besides "conservative." I know this is kind of flogging a dead horse, but really. We're talking about a small cabal of insiders gaming the rules so a minority can have its way over everybody else. Nothing "conservative" about that. It's nefarious and reactionary and anti-democratic, and it's even anti-populist. I haven't been able to think up a better term, but maybe collectively we can?
Fascist?
The word "conservative" reallyshouldn't be used anymore, but people understand it too far from its actual menaung.
"Republicans" and "Republican associated" probablu the most accurate term.
"Revanchist" is a term I use a lot more than I used to.
As is "fascist".
(And "shitbag", but that one admittedly has wider application.)
It's Frank Wilhoit's Law again:
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
...but I agree that "conservatism" no longer seems like an appropriate term since there are still just a few folk who don't behave like this but who clearly aren't 'liberal' (or even 'centrist') in any way.
The only thing that can be conserved is privilege, and the only way to conserve it is by violence.
from Kevin Munger at Crooked Timber:
"The traditional justification for conservatism is based in epistemic humility: there is only so much knowledge that we can accumulate within our lifetimes—especially about life-changing events like marriage or raising a child—so we should defer to the condensed knowledge of the past, condensed in the form of traditions, norms and institutions. The challenge for any reasonable person is to evaluate the tradeoff between tradition and progress, and the conservative is simply someone who puts more weight on the former."
Do most or many modern American conservatives believe this, live by this ? I don't know. But some do.
That's a lovely rationale for having no interest and being antagonistic to anyone who does.
Exactly right. A lot of huffing and puffing, signifying nothing. I could just as easily have noted that those who waterboarded innocent people simply have 'different priorities' than you do and it would be just as true and just as vacuous.
First of all I was not responding to the vote in Wisconsin only to : "The only thing that can be conserved is privilege, and the only way to conserve it is by violence." which seems like an idiotically simplistic notion.
I don't follow your logic. How is it a rationale for having no interest ? Do you think you are the first person to ponder any of this , that the thousands of generations before you have nothing of value to offer and that only your "progressive" insights have meaning ?
It undeniable that our societies are changing too fast. As in faster than we can keep up, but that is relating to technology
Laws are not supposed "reflect what majorities think best." Ideally, law should be based on what is right morally. In practice, (Dredd Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Bowers v. Hardwick, Roe V Wade) that often isn't the case. But to base laws on what the majority wants is not constitutional.
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion about what ‘the ideal’ is. But in the real world, a majority of elected legislators decide what the laws will be in representative democracies, or a supermajority if there is an executive with a veto. Certain cases of resolutions or acts of the legislature may require supermajorities. In jurisdictions with constitutions, challenges to majority rule may be brought to a constitutional court. But modern democracies are majoritarian within a limited number of constraints.
I should have put that better, and it's complicated. Constitutions are silent about many things, which leaves a wide latitude for law, and majority rule needs to be consistent with minorities' rights. But I'll posit that a minoritarian tyranny like what Walker instituted in WI is at least as morally wrong and harmful as a majoritarian tyranny.
The shorter version is, if you think tyranny by is bad, try tyranny by the few.
Argh! That should be 'If you think tyranny by the many is bad, try tyranny by the few.'
Until God comes down and walks among us and inscribes the proper handling of all abortion cases on stone tablets, we're going to have to decide for ourselves, and one group does not have some advantage in knowing God's will over another.
So we instead go by votes, which involve majorities. We make mistakes, and then we fix them, by convincing our fellow citizens, not by calling them names or disparaging them as unholy. That's the path of the Pharisees.
"Until God comes down and walks among us and inscribes the proper handling of all abortion cases ... "
Proposition: He did.
Translation of Luke 10:27: If there's one thing a child of God need's to know, it is two things.
First, if there's a dilemma between what your heart (intuition) is telling you to do and what your mind (logic) is telling you to do, don't flip a coin. Instead, resolve the dilemma.
Second, if there's a dilemma between what you think should happen and what your neighbor thinks should happen, don't flip a coin. Instead, resolve the dilemma.
In other words, act based on understanding, and not based on a kneejerk reaction.
Alternatively, just because a woman (or anyone) is doing something you think is wrong doesn't mean that they're doing something wrong.
Alternatively, adhere to the Bob Dylan rule: "Don't criticize what you can't understand," which implies that it is okay to criticize when you do understand.
The word I use is Trumpian.
Excellent question. My suggestions:
A (real) progressive is open minded and skeptical, but more open minded and less skeptical.
A (real) conservative is open minded and skeptical, but more skeptical and less open minded.
A radical is not open minded or skeptical. Instead, a radical is cynical and naïve.
A person becomes naïve if they're so open minded that they're no longer skeptical. A person becomes cynical if they're so skeptical that they're not longer open minded.
Thus, skeptical and open minded are two sides of the same coin, and cynical and naïve are two sides of the same coin. The former is coin of the Wisdom realm. The latter is the coin of the realm of Ignorance.
How'd I do?
I believer there is also a special election for a Wisconsin senate seat. If the GOP win, they can impeach and convict a Supreme Court justice. Why--because they can. And looks like the Republican won.....
Hopefully someone who knows more can correct me...
Looks like the Republican won by over one percentage point. Still, impeaching a Justice just elected by the people would seem risky - a lot of voters are going to be pissed off. Although the MAGATS are fine with antidemocratic power plays.
This is bouncing around the lefty blogs but it simply isn't true. The state constitution of Wisconsin requires 2/3 majorities in both chambers to convict a Supreme Court justice.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000233/000014
Republicans have a 2/3 majority in the Senate but not in the Assembly.
And, when the jerrymandered districts are thrown out, a fairer drawing of districts will occur. This is the Republican high water point for Wisconsin.
You appear to be misreading it.
A two thirds majority is only required in the Senate trial.
Here's where the confusion comes from, as far as I can tell, and it's because the WI constitution really is confusing. According to Article VII there are two ways to remove judges and justices. The way most of us are familiar with is impeaching and convicting them as civil officers, which as kenalovell shows takes a majority vote of the lower house and 2/3 of the senate (section 1).
There is a second way to do it called "removal by address," which seems to be essentially doing it by legislative resolution (section 13). That's the one that takes 2/3 of both houses. (And I wonder whether it would stand up to a challenge as a bill of attainder, but that's for another day.)
The section 1 impeachment standard is a little narrower than the one for a president, but it's plenty elastic enough and these guys wouldn't be fazed for a second even if it was narrow and ironclad. It would be funny, though, if the assembly did impeach and was sued for not complying with the standard, because I think it would have to go to the supreme court.
It looks like the Republican won the state Senate seat, so the new justice will probably be impeached two seconds after she takes her oath.
Why not impeach the other three too?
Specially after they defied Trump in 2020.
read a mere two comments above yours. it can't happen.
Protasiewicz will be sworn in on August 1st. Four long months to see what Republicans in Wisconsin's legislature will try to cook up to burn her election before then. And I suppose, what poisons the current conservative Supreme Court will toss into the mix. Could be fun.
Exactly. Remember, a rat is most dangerous when cornered. The possible loss of privilege will drive the Wisconsin MAGArepubs into "cornered rat" mode.
That's a lot riding on a single supreme court justice in one state.
If Republicans weren't such assholes when they have power - doing things like rigging electoral districts so that when they get less than half the vote, they still get upwards of 2/3 of the legislature, and stripping incoming governors of their powers if they are from the opposing party, you know, like they did in Wisconsin - then Supreme Court races wouldn't be so consequential.
Republicans did (and are continuing to do) all this to themselves. Nobody decent anywhere should be voting for anyone with R after their name until the Republican Party proves it can act in good faith towards their opponents. And we're definitely not at that point yet, as evidenced by Kelly's classless "concession" speech to Protasiewicz. So fck them. These are the Calvinball rules they wanted. I hope the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturns everything Republicans did to fck over the non-Republican majority of people living in their state for the last decade-plus.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dan-kelly-throws-emotional-tantrum-after-losing-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/ar-AA19vg4o
Exactly right. You know, I don't mind someone holding an opposing viewpoint. But I despise with a white-hot passion anybody who argues in bad faith, who thinks engaging in cutesy rhetorical dishonesty is a value-neutral proposition that's just a part of the game. Those people are pretty rotten people, which has been my experience when I have to deal with them in person in real life.
Kelly's transparent masquerade as an impartial jurist was supposed to be enough for people to ignore his obvious R bias. That's how the game has been played in the past, but Dems aren't having it any longer and it's driving the R's crazy. How are they supposed to win elections if their actual stands are made clear? So unfair.
And they're not just glass bowls. They literally refuse to govern, to address known problems, to do anything for "the governed" who chose them. It's mainly self-serving performance, heckling, and revenge upon "the Libz" these days. Tearing down the stuff that works, yelling about figments of their own fevered imagination, blaming Democrats for a lot of things, but doing nothing to solve or remediate them.
Running on the proposition that government is the enemy, government is useless ... then making that happen.
been waiting for this moment for years. a middle finger to scott walker and the republican party of wisconsin.
the irony is that mere months ago, the republican candidate for governor boldly predicted his ascension to the big house (governor's mansion) would mean the democratic party would never again win an election in wisconsin. of course he lost. now, his party has lost.
The impertinence of seizing control by winning an election! And Democrats wonder why Republicans are losing faith in government by we-the-people.
Democrats won the election, which, of course, to white nationalist rag National Review means that they have "seized control."
The margin was very nearly 10 points. I find that as heartening as the result itself.
The margin of victory will wind up being 12 points. The polls weren't even closed an hour before it was called. Compared to to previous Wisconsin elections that's almost miraculous.
"been waiting for this moment for years. a middle finger to scott walker and the republican party of wisconsin."
Indeed they have although Walker, whose been out of office for the past five years, wasn't around to see it since he lives in D.C. now, his career pretty much over despite the fact he's still in his political prime. Still gave me a robo call though before Tuesday's vote which I appreciated by hanging the phone up as quickly as I could.
It's amazing how someone whose rose so quickly in political power crashed and burned so fast as well. No doubt Trump damaged those prospects severely but there was a reason for this. Walker so alienated and embittered those union employees (public and private), many of them Trump supporters, by taking away their right to collective bargain and making Wisconsin a Right to Work State. Didn't have to do it. Would have saved him a lot of grief. But no, he did it because he thought it would cripple the Democratic Party in the state and unleash one-party GOP rule forever. It didn't. It made people mad and they've been taking out on statewide GOP candidates ever since 2018 coinciding with the rise of Trump. Only their severe gerrymander keeps them in power in the legislature.
Now with Protasiewicz's win, the current maps may well be toast but that doesn't guarantee a Dem majority. The collapse of the party's vote in rural areas is very real. For 24 years (1971-1995) the Dems controlled the Wisconsin legislature based on an urban-rural coalition (From 1995-2011 the parties swapped control in both houses) that was finally torn asunder in 2010 in Tea Party backlash to Obama, let's be honest about it. But the trends, especially since Dobbs, are working the other way now. If you look at a map of Tuesday's election, the Dems are winning rural areas in the southwest and south-central part of the state, still winning in the Lake Superior belt of counties and have pretty much added Door County as well. The won counties with mid-sized cities and college towns (Eau Claire, LaCrosse, Winnebago, Portage, Dunn, Pierce) but what's more they're winning suburban and exurban areas around these communities thanks to Dobbs. You needn't wonder now why John Roberts did not want Roe overturned.
What's worse for the GOP is that when it comes to statewide races, unless they change somehow, they're fucked. If they continue to lose Dane by over 80 percent of the vote, Milwaukee by 70 percent, continue to lose vote share in the "WOW" counties (Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington) and lose the just as important "BOW" counties (Brown-Outagamie-Winnebago) which includes Green Bay and the Fox Valley, old industrial cities and suburbs, there's no way any of their candidates can win. My home county of Pepin in Wisconsin voted 55 percent for Kelly and there many others like that were the same if not worse. But it's not going to matter when Pepin only has 7,000 residents. Carrying little red counties in northern, central and eastern Wisconsin means jack shit when their vote totals don't even add up to half of Dane County's. For way too long GOP leaders have been in complete denial about this.
Will they change? People mentioned the State Senate race in a district in the northern Milwaukee suburbs. The GOP already had a 2/3's majority in the Senate but of their number retired back in November (the speculation being she left thinking a Liberal Dem she was in sympathy with might have a shot of winning the race which she almost did). If this is now a "swing district" in spite of the gerrymander with just 39 percent turnout in a spring election, then what's going to happen in a Presidential election year which the seat is up next year, hmmm? Already the victor and the Senate Majority Leader are downplaying any impeachment sentiment because quite frankly it would do them absolutely no good. Impeach the governor and Dem Lt. Governor takes over. Impeach Protasiewicz and Gov. Evers makes the appointment to replace her. It would just inflame people's sentiment against them even further if that's even possible. So some horse sense is starting to sink in.
The problem is the activist wing of the party, the "base" if you will, has no desire to be anything different than what they are and if certain talk radio show hosts and bloggers who have been leading and feeding that base demand the Senate exercise that power it would be difficult to resists. Likewise, the party's stance on abortion is so extreme, simply moderating it is impossible. It would be like driving 150 mph and suddenly throwing the car in reverse. No one would believe the politicians and the activists, for whom the abortion questions is why for many they're Republicans in the first place, would be so pissed off, they wouldn't allow it to happen. They'd primary anyone (as they did the Speaker of the Assembly last year). And as for statewide candidates, their leading man to take on Sen. Baldwin next year is for Milwaukee County Sheriff and right-wing extremist David Clarke! Yeah, I mean it's that bad.
One last thing I want to point out: Charlie Sykes is from Wisconsin. You may know him (www.thebulwark.com) he was in the radio talk-show business for 20 years. He got out after 2016 because he realized his audience didn't want intelligent convwersation, they wanted extreme rhetoric and hate. The only problem is, while it may get ratings from the target audience, it created more liberals than converted them. And that's the gag! Because the dirty little secret of talk radio is you need polarization for the kind of show conservatives will actually tune into (or in the case of Fox watch). In other words you need plenty of liberals to be mad about and repelled by (as Rush Limbaugh told one of his sibilings as his mom's funeral "I have to be hated by half the country to make millions of dollars".) Charlie figured it out and got out. The rest, however, are still making money, still getting ratings and still making more liberals. I'm old enough to remember when Republican candidates could get 45 percent of the vote in Dance County and actually win Milwaukee County.
Another thing about Wisconsin I wish to point out that has national implications: Three state constitution referendums were on the ballot Tuesday and passed overwhelmingly. All three were written by the GOP having to do with cash bail and work requirements for welfare benefits. The idea was to increase turnout of Republican voters. But they were so innoceously worded and the party failed to drum any support for them on its own that, most voters read them and had no objections. So while GOP-authored measures won on their own because they were popular with voters, the candidate they supported was crushed because he was decidedly unpopular (and his concession speech simply proved to people as to why. He just a big jerk.) And the things he stood for were decidedly unpopular.
It goes to the point Freddie de Boer often makes about the extreme Left. They simply don't want to do politics. Basic politics of getting people to vote for your side because you wish to do things a majority of them like. But the same takes place on the Right as well and Wisconsin is a good example of it. GOP voters nominate terrible statewide candidates who get beat and want the most extreme abortion bans. How are you going stop crime when you're filling the prisons of all the women who get abortions? You see what I'm getting at? They don't care. They simply wish, as Austin Bramwell so well put it: "that the flame of pure intention is not extinquished." Well, they and the Washington Generals have a lot in common.
Pingback: In den Behörden streiken die AR-15-Schütz*innen für mehr sozialdemokratischen Klimaschutz in Wisconsin - Vermischtes 11.04.2023 - Deliberation Daily