Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature asked that the newest Democratic-backed justice on the state Supreme Court recuse herself from lawsuits seeking to overturn GOP-drawn electoral maps, arguing that she has prejudged the cases.
God I’m fucking tired of this type of hypocrisy. They want her to ignore that republicans have systemically attacked democracy in Wisconsin, but they think that if she gives a ruling on the case it would be “undemocratic”. I hope no one falls for this shit.
The worst part is Republicans are the first ones to trot out “mandate from the people” whenever they get elected…
These “mandates” also apply when losing the popular vote, somehow.
She ran for office on an anti-gerrymandering platform, and the voters elected her (by a huge margin!) in large part because of that; if there’s any case she should not recuse herself from, it’s this one.
(obviously it’d be better if we didn’t have to resolve political questions like this through supreme court elections, but if the legislature creates a situation where it’s impossible to vote them out directly, voters are left with little alternative but to fix the system through elected justices)
So you’re admitting she’s in the pocket of Big Voter?
So you’re admitting that she’s biased against wholesale voter disenfranchisement!
Democracy itself is biased against voter disenfranchisement. How ridiculous. They should let us vote against it. The people need to be heard.
Classic Republican. “Let the people decide” but also “no not like that!”
“let [our] people decide”
Let certain people decide.
Let the wight people decide.
“Oh, what’s that? You want me to hear all redirecting cases from now on? No problem.”
“Objection your honor — your presence is very damaging to my crimes”
Over ruled
“So let me get this straight GOP Legislature. You’re arguing that I should not be able to make a ruling on this because you drew the districts? Did you totally fail high school government classes where we talk about ‘checks and balances’? Its literally my job to look at what you do in the legislature, irrespective of what party you’re with, to make sure it complies with the law. You want no ‘checks and balances’ on your actions? You’re arguing I shouldn’t do my Constitutionally mandated job. You know we don’t live in a monarchy right? You know you’re not a king? Why do you hold a public office if you’re advocating autocracy and fascism?”
Clarence Thomas first.
How about when Clarence Thomas starts recusing himself from cases in front of the Supreme Court that involve his buddies then this justice would do the same? Until then? No way.
Speaking the truth is not bias. Hypocritical morons.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature asked that the newest Democratic-backed justice on the state Supreme Court recuse herself from lawsuits seeking to overturn GOP-drawn electoral maps, arguing that she has prejudged the cases.
Republicans argue in their motions filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday and made public Wednesday that Justice Janet Protasiewicz can’t fairly hear the cases because during her campaign for the seat earlier this year she called the Republican-drawn maps “unfair” and “rigged” and said there needs to be “a fresh look at the gerrymandering question.”
“Justice Protasiewicz’s campaign statements reveal that her thumb is very much on the scale in this case,” Republicans argue in their motion with the court.
However, the Republican-led Legislature argues that because Democrats would benefit from a redrawing of the maps, Protasiewicz must recuse herself from hearing the case.
Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis.
That group of professors and research scientists submitted proposed legislative maps in 2022, before the state Supreme Court adopted the Republican-drawn ones.
The original article contains 559 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 64%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
If the voters agreed, she wouldn’t have been elected.
If you don’t think judges should be elected, that’s a different issue.
