The conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court told the new liberal majority in a scathing email that they had staged a “coup” when they voted recently to weaken her powers and hire a new director of state courts.
The conservative chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court told the new liberal majority in a scathing email that they had staged a “coup” when they voted recently to weaken her powers and hire a new director of state courts.
This seems like a pretty stupid system, honestly - when the composition of the court changes there should be a new election, fixed terms for chief justices that overlap an election for another seat make no sense.
EDIT: apparently this was a recent change, in a referendum, replacing a previous system where they conservative judges were stuck with a liberal chief they didn’t like; from Wikipedia:
So they literally passed a referendum to fix the problem of the chief justice not matching the politics of the majority, and now they’re mad that the liberal justices are trying to fix the same problem again.
I’m not so sure that’s accurate. In the article you’ve got someone hired by the Liberal Majority taking over the work of the Chief Justice, who did not agree to it, and then signing legal documents appointing new Judges with the Chief Justice’s name.
Sure, fuck Republicans, but that sounds super shady to me.
it’s a pretty stupid system because judges are elected by politicians, period. In other countries the justice is completely independent - for example in Italy (were we still have a lot of different issues) judges are elected by their peers.
The Wisconsin state supreme court is elected by the citizens of the state (source: I voted for Protasiewicz in the last election)
Its a bit wierd here. Some are appointed and some are elected and judicial retention is a ballot item. The thing about elections is the general populace do not have much to go by so your system sounds better. For example I lean heavily on various bar association recommendations for my vote. Luckily in most cases the bar associations are in agreement and when they are not its someone to look into.