tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post1658697004038414201..comments2024-03-08T00:16:27.904-08:00Comments on DOM'S DOMAIN POLITICS: ABRAHAMSON SPITEFUL? SHIRLEY THEY JEST! BECAUSE INSIDERS SAY SHE’S LIKELY TO WIN OVER TIMEDominique Paul Nothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12081403597565070566noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post-66660198043368043372015-05-07T23:55:31.849-07:002015-05-07T23:55:31.849-07:00Excellent Job Sir. Excellent Job Sir. Bay View Curbsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641626250880294547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post-77687115815838978512015-04-16T14:22:23.265-07:002015-04-16T14:22:23.265-07:00I thought I would address your issue in my next pi...I thought I would address your issue in my next piece but that became a side defense. Seniority still plays a role even on US courts. There has long been an issue at the US high court that of late they haven't nominated people from many walks of life as in the past, but while technically it does not require seniority it sure depends on experience. Even Roberts served in Reagan's White House and litigated often before the court and served on the bench . If you look at judicial appointments in the US experience matters and seniority plays an informal role. I think you are picking on a phrase and all US institutions do use seniority. I think it is a false equivalent to think that seniority is not part of democracy though I am bothered by the presumption of incumbency and how many people hang on because of seniority rules. In this case I don't think Abrahamson is guilty of that and it is false to say she is defending seniority as opposed to defending her constitutional rights against being removed mid-term when she was elected to complete her programs..<br />Dominique Paul Nothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12081403597565070566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post-59912289821452221362015-04-13T09:15:08.566-07:002015-04-13T09:15:08.566-07:00"to falsely equate seniority (which all US in..."to falsely equate seniority (which all US institutions use)"<br /><br />The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't. The Chief Justice is appointed. Sometimes a President appoints a sitting Justice as Chief Justice (which requires a confirmation vote in the Senate), but more often appoints a new justice as Chief Justice - which means that the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is often the most junior Justice!<br /><br />As far as how she ran her campaign, that's true. It's also moot. The ballot listed two people, of which Justice Abrahamson was one, running for the office of Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. They were not running for Chief Justice. How she ran her campaign has nothing to do with what office she was actually running for under the law. If the office in question had been Chief Justice, then if she had lost her opponent would have become Chief Justice - which he would NOT have. Campaign literature does not create a right to an office.<br /><br />As far as her current status, here's the old wording:<br /><br />"(2) The justice having been longest a continuous member of said court, or in case 2 or more such justices shall have served for the same length of time, the justice whose term first expires, shall be the chief justice. The justice so designated as chief justice may, irrevocably, decline to serve as chief justice or resign as chief justice but continue to serve as a justice of the supreme court."<br /><br />Nothing in there says that once having become Chief Justice the holder has a right to it for the rest of their term no matter how the Constitution may change later on. Justice Abrahamson was Chief Justice because of the above statement in the Constitution. That statement is no longer in the Constitution, so she is no longer Chief Justice. The Constitution now says that an election is to be used to choose the Chief Justice. Since no such election has been held, the office is currently vacant, and an election by the Justices is needed to fill it.RonFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346484258194484053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post-18617278818941912652015-04-10T20:37:20.761-07:002015-04-10T20:37:20.761-07:00Thanks for a great follow-up to Tuesday's vote...Thanks for a great follow-up to Tuesday's vote. And that's a terrific t-shirt you are wearing in your photo!LINDA from Each Little Worldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380944603357066650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post-11548738813766067062015-04-10T18:17:36.395-07:002015-04-10T18:17:36.395-07:00Well done, indeed.
And yet another costly court c...Well done, indeed.<br /><br />And yet another costly court case caused by the Walkerites that will have to be paid for by the Wisconsin taxpayers, I presume? That, as we know all too well in Milwaukee, is the Walker Way.Milwaukeeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576342883112186344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-735428625592791276.post-20364188548279137552015-04-10T11:51:30.467-07:002015-04-10T11:51:30.467-07:00Well done, DPN!Well done, DPN!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15890663175367455875noreply@blogger.com