Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson announced Wednesday that she will not seek re-election in 2019.
“It is the right decision for me,” Abrahamson said in a press release. “More importantly, it is the right decision for the state. I will encourage qualified candidates to seek election and to do so in a way that honors the independent and non-partisan tradition of the judicial branch in Wisconsin—though that tradition has been tested too often.”
Abrahamson, 84 years old, is currently the longest-serving justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She was appointed by Democratic Governor Patrick Lucey in 1976 as the first female justice on the court. She has since been re-elected four times.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Longtime Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson was absent from court arguments and closed-door discussions Monday without explanation.
Chief Justice Pat Roggensack announced from the bench that Abrahamson would miss oral arguments in three cases the court heard that day and was not participating in the decisions. Roggensack did not give a reason for the absence.
Abrahamson did not recuse herself from the cases.
Court spokesman Tom Sheehan said that Abrahamson did not provide a reason for her absence. It is highly unusual for a justice to miss arguments without explanation.
No shocker here. One must ponder the legal mind of a Supreme Court Justice who files what are essentially frivolous lawsuits.
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 who serves as 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.”
It’s amazing to think that she is still one of only 7 Supreme Court Justices in Wisconsin and the former Chief Justice. One would hope that our judges are fairly strict about the truth, but not this one.
A federal court has declared that former Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson lied about her personal knowledge of certain facts and misrepresented negotiations between her legal team and lawyers representing her fellow Supreme Court justices. “[T]he Abrahamson affidavit contains some statements that are not based on personal knowledge and that falsely portray the negotiation of the stipulated facts,” wrote Judge James Peterson in a June 10 decision striking portions of Abrahamson’s filing from the court record. Peterson was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama.
[…]
But there’s a problem: while Abrahamson claims she participated in the negotiation of the stipulation of facts, according to five of her fellow justices, Abrahamson was absent from the negotiations. That means Abrahamson lied when she claimed personal knowledge of the legal discussions and claimed that certain matters were not included in those discussions.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court could have a new chief justice soon, after a federal judge on Tuesday refused to block a voter-approved change in how the head of the court is selected.
While the judge recommended that Abrahamson stay chief until her case is fully adjudicated in order to avoid switching chiefs again should she win. I disagree. They should elect a new chief ASAP.
It is funny that nobody – Abrahamson, Judge Peterson, etc. – thinks that Abrahamson’s peers would elect her to be their chief. That’s telling.
A federal judge on Thursday denied Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson’s request for a temporary restraining order blocking a constitutional amendment that likely would lead to her demotion.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson said Abrahamson does not face the risk of irreparable injury since the constitutional amendment she’s seeking to block won’t take effect until at least April 29.
Supreme Court Chief Shirley Abrahamson today filed a federal lawsuit seeking to prevent the constitutional amendment passed yesterday from taking effect until after her current term ends in 2019.
The amendment would allow members of the court to pick a chief justice every two years rather than assigning the position to the most tenured jurist. Abrahamson, who has held the post since 1996, argued that her 2009 re-election campaign focused heavily on her position and voters expected re-electing her would keep her in her post. Turning her out now, she argued, would dilute the votes that were cast for her in 2009 and change the results of that election.
She also argued there is no language in the amendment that makes clear it should be implemented retroactively. Abrahamson also filed for a temporary restraining order to stop enforcement of the amendment until July 1, 2019, when her term ends.
Talk about “bitter clinger.” I have a hard time seeing where she has a case here. This is about a amendment, approved by the voters, to their state constitutional. There isn’t a federal issue here.
Even her claim that the voters, when they elected her, we voting for her as chief justice is wrong. The ballot doesn’t even mention “chief” justice. Not to mention the fact that then she would have to argue that the voters who elected her to be a justice in 1989 were also electing her to be the chief justice in 1996 – 7 years after the election. No, we elect justices – not a chief justice.
Nothing to see here… just a lefty judge who knows that her peers wouldn’t elect her to lead them.
