They are from left to right
David Prosser current term expires when Waukesha is fully investigated.
Pateince Roggensack Her current term expires July 31, 2013.
Justice Michael J. Gableman His current term expires July 31, 2018.
Annette Kingsland Ziegler Her current term expires July 31, 2017.
Justice Shirley Abrahamson accuses the majority of 4 of giving case ‘short shrift’
In hastily reaching judgment, Justice Patience D. Roggensack, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman author an order, joined by Justice David T. Prosser, lacking a reasoned, transparent analysis and incorporating numerous errors of law and fact. This kind of order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority’s ultimate decision.
Chief Jusice Abrahamson was joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice N. Patrick Crooks in dissent in part from the order.¶76 It is exactly because the issues in the present case are of such constitutional and public policy importance that I do not join the order.
The Acitivist Judges above said that Judge Sumi’s order meddled in legislative procedure and was not relevant to the constitution.
“As the court has explained when legislation was challenged based on allegations that the legislature did not follow the relevant procedural statutes, “this court will not determine whether internal operating rules or procedural statutes have been complied with by the legislature in the course of its enactments.” Id. at 364. “[W]e will not intermeddle in what we view, in the absence of constitutional directives to the contrary, to be purely legislative concerns.”
“The court’s decision on the matter now presented is grounded in separation of powers principles. It is not affected by the wisdom or lack thereof evidenced in the Act. Choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the State of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts. The court’s task in the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to determining whether the legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the Act. We conclude that the legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used.”
In my own words
The four activist judges do not see how a committee meeting in the middle of the night to enact a law without following the rules of the legislature has anything to do with the Constitution. So, if we cannot rely on the courts to protect us from legislator’s manipulating rules to take away our rights, who can we rely on? What is the function of the court if not to protect us from such unethical political maneuvering?
It is up to us.
The Supreme Court election was fraught with evidence suggesting election fraud to the benefit of Prosser. In the past, he and Kathy Nickolaus have accepted immunity from prosecution for their testimony in illegal campaign activity. The Waukesha Supreme Court Election process needs a full and complete independent investigation.
read Unseat Prosser – Investigate Waukesha for more about how the GAB is shirking it’s responsibility in the lack of investigation.