Justice without judgment
TShirley Abrahamson is a judge who lacks judgment.
here might be nothing more satisfying than the end of a good mystery novel. When the book finally reveals whodunit, you slap your head and yell “of course!” (Preferably in a public library.) You think back to all the clues that led to the big reveal, and, suddenly in retrospect, they all add up.
Sadly, the mystery over why Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is so dysfunctional hasn’t been quite as unpredictable. With erstwhile Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s lawsuit to cling to her position of power, the reveal has been made, and it confirms what everyone knew all along; Abrahamson is responsible for the acrimony that has crippled the court for years.
Abrahamson’s caustic style has been known for decades. Before passing away in 2011, former liberal Justice William Bablitch said that a “good deal” of the responsibility for the acrimony on the court “goes to her.” When she ran for election in 1999, four of her court colleagues took the unprecedented step of opposing her candidacy.
And Abrahamson’s lawsuit is retroactively proving them all right. Her case is, essentially, that in 2009 voters elected her to the position of chief justice, given the state’s constitutional provision that the longest serving justice be granted what is essentially an administrative job. But the ballot didn’t say “Shirley Abrahamson for chief justice” on it; it merely said “Justice of the Supreme Court.” As University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse has noted, had Abrahamson’s opponent won, he wouldn’t have been inserted as chief justice.
Just weeks ago, voters eliminated the requirement that the longest serving justice be appointed chief. This makes sense, as governmental bodies are almost always free to choose their own preferred leader. (Democratic Madison-area Sen. Fred Risser was first elected to the Legislature in 1957 — it would be bizarre for him to be in charge of the Senate for decades no matter what party held the majority.)
Thus, with her lawsuit, Abrahamson is essentially suing the voters of Wisconsin who knowingly voted her out of her position. During her campaigns, Abrahamson frequently cited her willingness to help the regular folks of Wisconsin — but that pledge rings somewhat hollow, given that she is willing to haul those same folks into court to keep them from prying her scepter from her spindly fingers. It might be the worst bit of public relations since Metallica started suing its own fans for sharing the band’s music online.
Fortunately, the court’s conservative majority didn’t play along with Abrahamson’s self-aggrandizing stunt and immediately installed Justice Patience Roggensack as its chief. (Abrahamson, of course, still contends she holds the job.) On the radio on Tuesday, Roggensack said she would work with other justices on a “consensus” basis, “rather than a dictatorial basis.”
Other columnists have argued that the conservatives’ quick action to replace Abrahamson is overplaying their hand. But it is no such thing; the chief’s chair is rightfully Roggensack’s, and delaying her ascension to the seat simply would be giving oxygen to Abrahamson’s charade.
Winston Churchill famously called Russia a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” But with Abrahamson’s lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s past acrimony is no longer a mystery wrapped in anything; her desperate quest to hold on to power might make Cersei Lannister say, “Yeah, that seems a bit much.”
Perhaps the true glory in Abrahamson’s comical lawsuit is that it proves her unfit for the position from which the voters just tossed her. She is a judge who lacks judgment.