341
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Liberals argued in a legal filing this week that Republicans were trying to nullify the election of a Democratic-backed Wisconsin Supreme Court justice by asking her to recuse herself from hearing redistricting lawsuits that could result in drawing new legislative electoral maps.

Attorneys in two separate redistricting cases filed arguments Tuesday objecting to the Republican-controlled Legislature’s request that Justice Janet Protasiewicz recuse herself. They argued that there was no legal or ethical obligation for Protasiewicz to step aside, despite her comments during the campaign that she thinks the current maps are “rigged” or because she accepted nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

One motion objecting to Protasiewicz’s recusal argued that such a move would be unsupported by fact or law and “it would be contrary to her duties as a justice on the Supreme Court.”

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 108 points 10 months ago

There is only one reason to object to the drawing of fair electoral districts and that is that you know you can't win with fair electoral districts. Republicans hate free and fair elections because they can't win free and fair elections.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 61 points 10 months ago

They admit as much to each other. The amount of election interference they have been doing is neither new or accidental. The courts gave us Bush, not the voters. The GOP is not so much a party as it is a slow coup that has only recently overplayed its hand. They remain emboldened.

[-] SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com 17 points 10 months ago

They are domestic terrorists. We need to stop beating around the bush they have even declared themselves as so much in conferences.

[-] Rusticus@lemmy.world 81 points 10 months ago

lol republicans asking a justice to recuse themselves.

Citizens v United assholes. I can think of no better example of justice bias and fucking Clarence was the deciding vote. Fuck y’all.

[-] Md1501@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago

So republicans actively fighting against the will of the people.....sounds like a normal day

[-] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

It only happens on any day that ends with a “y”.

[-] Spacebar@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

They're threatening to impeach her and the Republicans have the 2/3rds majority in the Senate to remove her from office. That's so messed up. That's so undemocratic.

[-] blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

Sauce:

Before she even took her seat, at least one Republican floated the idea of impeaching and removing Protasiewicz. The GOP has the needed simple majority in the state Assembly and a supermajority in the state Senate to do so, but is only allowed to impeach government officials for “corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Wisconsin Constitution.

But Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, could simply reappoint her, or another person, to the position, allowing the left to maintain their majority.

However, the state Constitution says this on the matter: “No judicial officer shall exercise his office, after he shall have been impeached, until his acquittal.”

https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/what-are-the-prospects-of-wisconsin-republicans-impeaching-protasiewicz/

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Liberals argued in a legal filing this week that Republicans were trying to nullify the election of a Democratic-backed Wisconsin Supreme Court justice by asking her to recuse herself from hearing redistricting lawsuits that could result in drawing new legislative electoral maps.

Attorneys in two separate redistricting cases filed arguments Tuesday objecting to the Republican-controlled Legislature’s request that Justice Janet Protasiewicz recuse herself.

They argued that there was no legal or ethical obligation for Protasiewicz to step aside, despite her comments during the campaign that she thinks the current maps are “rigged” or because she accepted nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

Protasiewicz did not make any “pledges or promises” about how she would rule, which would require recusal, said attorneys in the second redistricting lawsuit representing voters who support Democratic candidates and several members of the Citizen Mathematicians and Scientists.

But her comments have led some Republican state lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, to say that impeachment should be considered if she doesn’t recuse from the cases.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered in the country, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis.


The original article contains 623 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
341 points (99.1% liked)

politics

18065 readers
4342 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS