Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature asked that the newest Democratic-backed justice on the state Supreme Court recuse herself from lawsuits seeking to overturn GOP-drawn electoral maps, arguing that she has prejudged the cases.

  • @rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    145
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    God I’m fucking tired of this type of hypocrisy. They want her to ignore that republicans have systemically attacked democracy in Wisconsin, but they think that if she gives a ruling on the case it would be “undemocratic”. I hope no one falls for this shit.

    • norb
      link
      fedilink
      412 years ago

      The worst part is Republicans are the first ones to trot out “mandate from the people” whenever they get elected…

  • Ertebolle
    link
    fedilink
    107
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    She ran for office on an anti-gerrymandering platform, and the voters elected her (by a huge margin!) in large part because of that; if there’s any case she should not recuse herself from, it’s this one.

    (obviously it’d be better if we didn’t have to resolve political questions like this through supreme court elections, but if the legislature creates a situation where it’s impossible to vote them out directly, voters are left with little alternative but to fix the system through elected justices)

    • Overzeetop
      link
      fedilink
      English
      672 years ago

      So you’re admitting she’s in the pocket of Big Voter?

    • gullible
      link
      fedilink
      452 years ago

      So you’re admitting that she’s biased against wholesale voter disenfranchisement!

      • Brokkr
        link
        fedilink
        222 years ago

        Democracy itself is biased against voter disenfranchisement. How ridiculous. They should let us vote against it. The people need to be heard.

  • StarServal
    link
    fedilink
    722 years ago

    Classic Republican. “Let the people decide” but also “no not like that!”

  • @WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    602 years ago

    “Oh, what’s that? You want me to hear all redirecting cases from now on? No problem.”

  • partial_accumen
    link
    fedilink
    462 years ago

    “So let me get this straight GOP Legislature. You’re arguing that I should not be able to make a ruling on this because you drew the districts? Did you totally fail high school government classes where we talk about ‘checks and balances’? Its literally my job to look at what you do in the legislature, irrespective of what party you’re with, to make sure it complies with the law. You want no ‘checks and balances’ on your actions? You’re arguing I shouldn’t do my Constitutionally mandated job. You know we don’t live in a monarchy right? You know you’re not a king? Why do you hold a public office if you’re advocating autocracy and fascism?”

    • @kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      142 years ago

      I’m sure she’ll be extremely polite about it… But yeah, the court will definitely invite them to engage in auto-coitus.

  • batsinlavender
    link
    fedilink
    252 years ago

    How about when Clarence Thomas starts recusing himself from cases in front of the Supreme Court that involve his buddies then this justice would do the same? Until then? No way.

    • @SheeEttin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      202 years ago

      If the voters agreed, she wouldn’t have been elected.

      If you don’t think judges should be elected, that’s a different issue.