Judge dismisses Shirley Abrahamson suit to regain chief justice role

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, whose suit to regain her post was thrown out Friday by a federal judge.

A federal judge on Friday dismissed Shirley Abrahamson's lawsuit aimed at regaining her position as chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Abrahamson and five people who voted for her at her last election as chief justice sued shortly after voters this spring approved a constitutional amendment that allows the court to elect its chief. Previously, the job went to the justice with the most seniority. Abrahamson had held the post since 1996.

In his order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge James Peterson said it was not the federal court's place to decide Abrahamson's claim of interpreting the amendment to take effect only at the end of her current term in 2019.

"Constitutional provisions are drawn with broad strokes," Peterson wrote. "There is no requirement that a state, in restructuring its government or the powers and duties of its officials by means of a constitutional amendment, do so with super-clarity to protect the interests of the officials or voters whose interests might be impaired.

"Unless its actions are plainly unconstitutional, Wisconsin has the authority and autonomy to restructure its government without interference from the federal government."
Shortly after voters approved the amendment in April, the court voted to make Patience Roggensack the new chief justice.

The amendment passed April 7 with the support of more than 53% of voters. Abrahamson sued almost immediately, claiming the change, if implemented immediately, would violate due process.
Peterson denied requests for an injunction, and on April 29, the Government Accountability Board certified the results of the amendment vote. The court held its own vote for a new chief justice the same day. Roggensack, Annette Ziegler, David Prosser and Michael Gableman voted for Roggensack. Abrahamson and justices Ann Bradley and Patrick Crooks, who had objected to the vote, did not cast ballots.

Peterson, in granting summary judgment for the defendants — other justices and state officials — conceded that the new amendment came up for interpretation in a rapid and unusual way but said it ultimately was the Supreme Court's interpretation to make, and it did so by voting to elect a new chief.

"It would make little sense for this court to interpret the amendment, when it is already clear how Wisconsin will do so," Peterson wrote.
He also found that the position of chief justice amounts to a property interest protected by due process, but that Abrahamson got plenty, given the long process that culminated with voters ratifying the amendment.

Peterson said federal court review of state action "does not require perfection of expression or purity of motive. The amendment passes constitutional muster, even if implemented immediately to remove Abrahamson from the position of chief justice."

Full Story

NUGENT: Zimmerman verdict vindicates citizen patrols, self-defense

So this guy’s neighborhood has been burglarized off and on and the residents are very concerned for their safety and well-being. Neighbors agree to upkick their vigilance and overall level of awareness to watch out for each other and keep an eye out for suspicious individuals and behavior. It could be considered by an official designation such as “Neighborhood Watch”, but officially labeled or not, it is the purest form of Americans watching out for each other and being good neighbors.

So far so good.

So George Zimmerman sees what he believes is a suspicious individual in suspicious circumstances, and intelligently and responsibly pays attention and calls 9-1-1 to report what he sees to the officials. This gesture is proof positive he was not looking to do anyone harm or break any laws, but rather perform the fundamental responsibility of a neighbor who cares.

Doing nothing illegal or improper, he follows the individual while answering all the questions from the 9-1-1 operator to the best of his ability, keeping an eye on the individual so the authorities can hopefully intercept and determine exactly what is going on.

For reasons unknown, though I will comment on momentarily, after expressing racism and hostility on the phone to a friend in response to being followed, the suspect now changes course and turns towards George and immediately initiates a hostile verbal confrontation that quickly escalate to a violent physical assault. Within seconds, the suspect has overwhelmed George, has gained the advantage on top, pinning George to the ground, and further escalates the assault to deadly force by smashing George’s face, breaking his nose, and violently slamming his skull onto the concrete with all his youthful athleticism.

George screams frantically for help as Trayvon Martin pummels his face and head furiously, inflicting damaging and potentially life threatening wounds. Fearing for his life and about to lose consciousness at the hands of an enraged, violent attacker, George Zimmerman does what anyone who wishes to live would do, and he reaches for his concealed handgun, firing a single shot to neutralize the deadly force being wreaked upon him.

This represents the purest form of self-defense there is. It is exactly why people who believe in good over evil carry a gun to protect themselves from the well documented violence that plagues our country, in order to save our lives from a life threatening attack. Period.

Based on all evidence available to them, the professional law enforcement officers did not hold George Zimmerman on charges later that night. They saw it for what it was: cut and dried self-defense.

And so it was for a few weeks until the race-baiting industry saw an opportunity to further the racist careers of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Panthers. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, et al, who then swept down on the Florida community refusing to admit that the 17-year-old dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe Trayvon Martin was at all responsible for his bad decisions and standard modus operendi of always taking the violent route.

With an obvious racist chip on his shoulder, referencing the neighborhood watch guy as a “creepy ass cracker” to his fellow racist female friend who admitted under oath that that is how non-blacks are referred to normally in their circles, Trayvon had no reason not to attack, because it was the standard thug thing to do. See Chicago any day of the week.

With nearly 700 examples of this truism played out in Chicago in 2012 alone, no one can possibly dispute the recent surge in black racism increasing throughout Barack Obama’s presidency. To attempt to claim otherwise is a laughable lie.

The jury got it right, and non-racist America rejoices that there is still common sense, honesty and decency aware of identifying justice in this country. America also believes that the entire prosecutorial team should be ashamed of themselves and disbarred for ignoring the obvious and kowtowing to the pure racism that forced the politically correct lie that only black lives killed by non-blacks matter, which is why there are no headlines, no protests, no prosecutions and no Barak Obama or Eric Holder meddling in the nonstop black-on-black slaughter in their gun-free zone of Chicago.
Martin Luther King Jr. is rolling over in his grave that he sacrificed his life for the cause of judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin, as so many of his own race carry in in self-destructive behavior while professional race mongers blame everything on racism. It is painful and heartbreaking to say and write this, but horrifically it is true. Blacks kill more blacks in a weekend in Chicago than the evil, vile Ku Klux Klan idiots did in 50 years. Truly earth shattering insane. And not a peep from Obama or Holder. Tragic.

The only racism on that night was perpetrated by Trayvon Martin, and everybody knows it.
Here’s the lesson from all this, America: Teach your children to not attack people for no good reason whatsoever. Conduct yourself in a responsible, civil manner, and everything will be just fine. Try to kill someone and that someone just may be exercising his or her Second Amendment rights and you could get shot. It’s called self-defense, and it is the oldest, strongest and most righteous instinct and God-given right known to man.

Ted Nugent is an American rock ’n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ’N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).

Full story

Abrahamson wins, Wisconsin Looses!

Well, it is the morning after and like the pill, another life has been taken. The life of a fair Judiciary. 59% of the people of Wisconsin have decided to impale the rest of us with a self inflicted wound that will be felt for 10 years...or will it?

Now that its all over... the timer starts on how long it will be before Shirley Abrahamson announces her retirement or dies of old age. It certainly won’t be that her conviction is true that she will not only finish the next ten years in good health full of vigor but is considering another 10 year run! This statement alone shows she is a few fries short of a happy meal. I've heard of positive thinking before but this is truly ridiculous.

I just hope the 59% who were swayed by her $1,000,000 understand what they just did. They renewed an activist Judge that will ultimately rule as she personally sees fit and ignores the actual will of the people. This will ultimately come back to haunt them all in one way or another...political liberal or conservative, both are not safe from Judicial activism.

To all the groups that did not get involved, you’re about to get more of what you paid for...enjoy.

WMC, Mark Belling and Charlie Sykes to some extent (he did comment a little at the end, but too little too late Charlie)...you guys?...I don't understand, sorry. You have lost your image as true conservatives. You’re now seen as just another mode of entertainment and not really as embattled in a cause with worthwhile values. You were more concerned with being on the winning side that actually living your values. Actually, you are seen now as media idiots and ultimately got what you wanted...the most activist Judge in the country right in your backyard for another 10 years, cool...thanks. You all managed to marginalize yourselves.

It's amazing what $1,000,000 can buy these days...that was the only difference in the race and the margin of victory was the money. Big money wins again...not right, but the way the machine works...for both sides.

Tick tock tick tock....

Abrahamson: CONVICTED of being an activist Judge! Vote Tuesday April 7th 2009 to return the power to the peope!

Please vote Tuesday April 7th 2009. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is between current activist Judge Shirley Abrahamson and strict constructionist Judge Randy Koschnick. Unlike commonly in a national election, your 1 vote can make a HUGE difference! There is expected to be a relatively low voter turnout (estimated to be between 10-20%) and that helps the underdog, Judge Randy Koschnick. The big special interest group/activist/big labor/union controlled Shirley is almost bought and paid for....$1,000,000 to secure another 10 years of activist rule on the state’s highest court. Don't let it happen, vote Tuesday for Judge Randy Koschnick. He will enforce the constitution as it is written, not how the people who pay Shirley’s bills will want it interpreted. And she owes them BIG TIME now...$1,000,000 plus!

We have a lot of important issues coming before the court in the near future and we don't want an activist Judge (politically conservative or liberal for that matter) bending our sacred constitution to their personal will.

Our founding fathers, along with many other brave men and women since them, have fought and died to create and then preserve our way of life, borders, language and culture. A major cornerstone in the success of that culture is the three branches of government. An activist Judge usurps the power invested in the ordinary everyday people of this great state of Wisconsin by reading things into it that are not there but that they personally wish were there. If a law needs to be changed, we already have an avenue for that, it's called the legislature. That is also where the partisan things should play out also....we are a republic, not a democracy. Our elected official vote for us and if we don’t like them, we vote them out. I am perfectly ok with that because then we have a system of checks and balances. An activist Judge is unbridled power and devastates the rest of the system.

Judge Koschnick does a brilliant job of outlining the writing on the wall of what has been happening and what will continue to happen if we don’t' stop Shirley from driving us further down that path. Visit http://www.koschnickforjustice.com/

Vote Koschnick on Tuesday for change and say "NO!" to special interest big money controlling your judicial system!

Two down, one big inJUSTICE to go!

Stop Shirley Abrahamson supreme court constitutional cluster$#*@

The Shirley Abrahamson Randy Koschnick supreme court of wisconsin race heats up and new facts are uncovered...

For more info please visit http://www.stopshirley.com/

Abrahamson pioneer in activist "new Federalism"

Shirley Abrahamson, nationally renowned Activist vs Randy Koschnick in the Wisconsin Supreme court race ...more evidence, now from the major media! Finally some actual investigative reporting with facts and everything....

Quotes in a recent article by Patrick McIlheran entitled "Who knew? Abrahamson remodels law" Posted: Mar. 26, 2009 jsonline.com

"That ad says Abrahamson has a national reputation; what it doesn't say is that it's a reputation for a progressive take on the law. When a U.S. Supreme Court spot opened in 1993, President Bill Clinton short-listed Abrahamson - but eventually opted for moderation by going with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court's present left wingtip."

"When her challenger, the bright and capable Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick, calls her an activist, she pleads that most of her cases are incontrovertible. True, of most Supreme Court decisions. It's the few close ones that shake things up. Abrahamson has some dandies, especially from 2005, her rare moment in the majority.That's when, for instance, she tossed out the Legislature's limits on malpractice jackpots against doctors. Usually, courts have to defer to lawmakers' judgments on policy, as long as they're rational. Abrahamson redefined the test of rationality so as to gain a free hand."

" That idea that even if the U.S. Supreme Court says no, a state court can finagle a yes is called "new Federalism...Abrahamson's a big name in it"

"...sympathy in hard cases is a good way to get bad law. Abrahamson needs to remember she's not a TV judge dispensing satisfactory endings. She's fiddling with the law."

"For years, Abrahamson's been writing that legal principle and reason sometimes just won't do. "A judge must judge different people differently," she once wrote, and elsewhere, she wrote that female judges "should make a special effort to understand other outsiders - the poor, the differently abled, . . . minorities." "

"Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson says she just can't grasp why critics call her an activist judge. "I don't know what these labels mean," she told editors and reporters recently.
If she actually believed that, I'd doubt her legendary intelligence. Law school professors, appeals court judges and colleagues of Abrahamson have in crystalline detail fleshed out the meaning: Activists stretch the law and the limits of courts' power to reach a desired result."


Full article here:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/41942497.html

Chief Justice Abrahamson is going to help you wiggle out of your bad mortgage - regardless of any kind of contract you signed

The ongoing saga of Shirley Abrahamson running for the Wisconsin Supreme against challenger Randy Koschnick. Abrahamson is a Judicial activist in action....again, and again, and again....we need change, not more of the same!

"Abrahamson said “The best thing a judge can do is to help people. That’s what I do.”
Is she serious? The best thing a judge can do is to apply the law as written to certain facts of a case. The judge’s role isn’t to “stand up” for anyone. “Standing up” for people means writing your own new laws to generate a favorable outcome... "

Read the full story here:
http://www.wpri.org/blog/?p=608

I agree....these are programs for the legislature...why is a judge initiating a "program" on mortages? Because she is an activist....the facts are yelling at us!

Third party ad attacking Koschnick runs in Supreme Court race

Clean campaign commercials?....Too good to be true....Liberals START a mudslinging fight...until now there have been no attack ads....leave it to the radical liberals Shirley is honored by...these are the people on her side! Oh...that's right...she isn't on a side.....

http://www.fox6now.com/news/sns-ap-wi--supremecourt-ad,0,4975146.story

Why would liberals run an attack ad on behalf of Shirley if they did not like her rulings better? She has a side after all....she won’t admit it honestly but her "peeps" speak loudly for her. All I ask is that she embrace her Liberal nature. It's so obvious to the rest of the world.

Shirley Abrahamson age is a concern, but not why you might think.

Shirley Abrahamson is 75 and running for another 10 year term on the Wisconsin Supreme against challenger Randy Koschnick 49. Now, they say age is a subject that should be off limits, and I agree if you are talking about their ability to do the job. I am questioning her desire to complete the full term. That isn't and should not be off limits. Shirley is obviously not going to be on the bench at 85 and will likely retire in the next 2-3 years. We have seen this time and time again. Therefore, she would win the election as a placeholder for the Governor to appoint a new Justice for a majority of the term…by the way...did you know that’s how Shirley got into this gig? yeah...she's an appointment....yes, she has run several successful elections since that time, but only after being appointed....should incumbency be the sole reason to keep someone in office? Her record is definitely not the reason as she is clearly out of touch with what the citizens of Wisconsin want as pointed out by the cases cited here: http://www.koschnickforjustice.com/cases.html
Yeah I know, the source above is her opponents site, but that doesn't change the cited cases facts...you could look them up yourself if you prefer.

Let's vote to change the status quo and get someone who understands their place in the 3 branches...understands that they are but one, not 2 and/or 3 of the branches....not just another elite judicial activist living in an ivory tower in Madison...keeping her simply because she is already there.

70 cases cited showing Abrahamson true activist colors are overwhelming

Check out the long long list of cases (otherwise known as facts for your judicial liberals) which affirm the true activist colors of Shirley Abrahamson....cited on Randy Koschnick's web site...just the facts maam...really Shirley...come on...."denial" it's not just a river in Egypt!

http://www.koschnickforjustice.com/cases.html

Abrahamson is an activist..."past performance is the best indication of future performance"

Wisconsin needs a Justice that will uphold the constitution as it was written by the people, period.

"The best conservative contender in years...." direct from The Isthmus, in the belly of the liberal beast - Madison WI

A recent article in the Isthmus talks about the strong advantages of Judge Koschnick over his opponent Abrahamson for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

"He's a far better candidate than any of the last three victorious conservatives. And, more to the point, he's a far better candidate than Shirley Abrahamson"

"Abrahamson, for her part, fervently rejects the suggestion that she approaches cases with any ideological predispositions: "I do what the facts and law require."
It's a good argument to make, but unconvincing. While a surprisingly large share of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously, some do break down along obviously ideological lines. At least some of Abrahamson's supporters believe she'll apply the law in ways that favor injured people over corporations and the rights of the criminal defendants, some innocent, over the power of the state. That's why they support her. "

Again, a push for Shirley to agree to run a clean campaign failed:
"Here's the exact question Abrahamson declined to answer: "Will you denounce any outside group that makes untrue statements on your behalf or tries to sully your opponent?" Here's Koschnick, asked the same question: "Yes. I don't want to see her personally attacked. I don't want people lying about her. I would correct any misinformation."

Read the full article here:

http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=25334

Abrahamson "liberal ideolog" even Bill Clinton passed

No Hiding Shirley's philosophy after this nugget was uncovered!...do read on....

The Milwaukee Journal

June 15, 1993

Earlier choices hurt Abrahamson
PATRICK JASPERSE

Journal Washington bureau

Washington, D.C. President Clinton wanted a safe nominee for the US Supreme Court, and Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson would have been too controversial, according to several sources familiar with Clinton's selection process.

The sources said Abrahamson was under serious consideration, but in the end was viewed as too liberal to be nominated by a weakened president who is trying to project a moderate image.

"The administration is a little gun-shy about any even slightly risky nominations right now," said a Senate aide who asked not to be identified. "I think they would like to have Shirley Abrahamson on the court, but I think the timing is bad because of the disasters they've had in the recent past with nominations."

During the first five months of his presidency, Clinton has had to withdraw his nomination of Zoe Baird to be attorney general and of Lani Guinier to head the Justice Department's civil rights division. Clinton on Monday nominated federal appeals Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg to succeed the retiring Justice Byron White.

Abrahamson said in a telephone interview that she "was flattered to have been considered; it's good to be on almost anybody's list for almost anything."

She said she had worked with Ginsburg on several judicial committees. "I am impressed with her intellect," Abrahamson said. "The president has submitted a distinguished and very well-qualified nominee."

Nominating Abrahamson would have resulted in "judicial Armageddon," said Clint Bolick, vice president of the conservative Institute for Justice, who spearheaded the opposition to Guinier. "I think that the Guinier nomination demonstrated to Bill Clinton how much capital it would cost him if he nominated a liberal ideolog like Abrahamson."

A second Senate aide said, "Clinton wanted a moderate and Abrahamson is perceived to be more of a liberal."

The aide added: "Anybody who got as far as Justice Abrahamson did, which we think was down to the single digits {in remaining candidates}, certainly is in the ballpark the next time there's a vacancy, and we expect to have a vacancy in the next couple of years."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said Monday that he was pleased with the choice of Ginsburg. But he also said of Abrahamson, "As far as I'm concerned, she should be on the Supreme Court. If it isn't this time, it should be next time."

Feingold was backing Abrahamson along with Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala, who knew Abrahamson from her days as chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Kohl, who as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will take part in Ginsburg's nomination hearings, also praised Clinton's choice of Ginsburg.
Copyright. All Rights Reserved.

Follow the money…

In April 2009 the citizens of Wisconsin get to cast their vote for the next judge on the Supreme Court. It is an opportunity for the voters to judge the judges on their past records and performance. A responsibility we hold very dear as one of a limited number of states that still allow the citizens to participate in the composition of the court. A critically important responsibility especially in a time where activist judges think they are the legislative power. They are not.

We the people get to weigh in on Shirley Abrahamson who is up for re-election. A challenger for her seat on the states highest court has emerged, Randy Koschnick of Jefferson County. His platform is one of judicial restraint, which is required for the position according to the premise of our constitution.

In the last two elections the voters in Wisconsin have spoken loud and clear. They have clearly stated they do not want activist judges. The most interesting thing about the upcoming election is that Shirley Abrahamson is the most activist judge on the high court. Unfortunately she is also deeply connected to the liberal machine and has many strings to pull, and has already pulled, to attempt to stop challengers. That obviously failed as we have a challenger for April 2009. People in the legal community have stated they would support a challenger publicly but some refrain from doing so out of fear of repercussion from the Chief Justice. I can certainly understand that…she has powerful liberal friends ingrained throughout the state and she has been known to wield that power like a reapers sickle. The voters will see through her though as her record is exposed this election and she can’t control the people of this great state. After all, she is the public servant placed in power by us, to serve us, not the other way around.

She has failed us and the people will remove her also. All you ever hear is one side of the story, that business groups bought ads and swayed the election by casting the previous activist judges in a disparaging light causing them to loose. Fact is, they were voted out because of they overstepped their bounds.

Liberals regularly use activist justices to reshape the law of the land as an end around to the legislative process, changing laws that few citizens in the state would have voted for if given the chance. Case in point: The Massachusetts supreme court erroneously allowed gay marriage that resulted in a rejection of those liberal justices at re-election time. Chief justice Shirley Abrahamson is our local equivalent and her extremely liberal record will be exposed and the people will reject her for another term.

Shirley recently stated "...judges should not be “pro” or “anti” anything..." but then spoke at a recent WEAC event...What? That is totally dishonest, your honor. WEAC has also been the biggest donors to the past activist judges and other recent elections and have pledged up to $4 million to keep their pal Shirley in power this time around. Anybody want to argue that WEAC is an independent public service organization with no political axe to grind or political agenda?

Fortunately, all the money in the world can't buy the people of this state. WEAC is the most powerful liberal activist power in Wisconsin. Why don't we ever hear this side of the story? Well, you have now. I don't care if she takes WEAC money and claims to be a Liberal activist...what I find dishonest is that she takes their money and claims she is impartial. Wow, that is conduct not becoming of a Supreme court justice.

“People of the state reject tired labels and divisive rhetoric, and they will have a chance to do so on April 7,” Abrahamson said in a recent interview. Really? not according to the last two elections…they have rejected the activist judges and they will again in April 2009.

We will be following the money now through April. So should you.