this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
112 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4259 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Wisconsin Republicans are considering impeaching a newly elected liberal Supreme Court justice in the state over comments she made as a candidate about redistricting and for receiving donations from the state Democratic Party.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) announced this week the formation of an impeachment criteria panel as Republicans weigh ousting Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose win in April established a 4-3 liberal majority on the court.

Protasiewicz has yet to hear a case, but the high court was asked in August to hear several cases on Wisconsin’s legislative maps.

Republicans point to previous comments Protasiewicz made about the state’s maps, in which she called calling them “rigged.”

Protasiewicz declined to say during the election how she would rule on the issue, and she has not determined whether she will recuse herself from the case.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They'll have fun losing by trying. She shouldn't recuse herself because we all know it's their last grasp of power in Wisconsin. Let the voters choose, and they chose liberals, not Republicans.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How could they lose? They have the necessary majorities in both chambers.

[–] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

With Gov. Evers responsible for choosing her replacement (including just re-appointing Protasiewicz) even if she is impeached this is likely just delaying the inevitable. Also she won by such a large margin (55-44) that a clear power grab over a popular political figure in the state that will ultimately not amount to much will just hurt R’s even more in 2024, especially under non-gerrymandered maps.

[–] wrath-sedan@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

House impeaches -> Senate convicts -> Gov. Evers chooses replacement

OR

House impeaches ~> Senate does nothing leaving Protasiewicz permanently suspended under Wisconsin law -> Protasiewicz resigns -> Gov. Evers chooses replacement

Either way I feel Republicans are just delaying the inevitable here. The only downside to option 2 is that instead of a ten year term, she would get a one year term. But Protasiewicz won by such a large margin already, that it might even boost dems up and down the ballot if she were forced to run again due to these anti-democratic hostile takeovers.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

One wi Dem should sponsor the motion and then add the conservative justices to it as well.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) announced this week the formation of an impeachment criteria panel as Republicans weigh ousting Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose win in April established a 4-3 liberal majority on the court.

Two recent lawsuits have asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rule the entire legislative map for 2024 should be redrawn.

Still, Republicans believe the liberal justice should recuse herself from considering either of the cases, though experts say there are protections in place for judicial candidates to be able to speak on legal issues.

Former conservative state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser confirmed to The Associated Press that Vos had reached out to him.

“I think actually the creation of that panel would seem to slow the timeline for a possible impeachment down, at least a little bit,” Yablon said, adding later, “… [H]e is, it sounds like, going to have these retired judges look into it for maybe several weeks.”

“An emergency, temporary restraining order is warranted in these circumstances as the mere act of an unconstitutional impeachment, even without a conviction, would nullify the vote of over one million Wisconsin voters, including and specifically those of the Petitioners,” it adds.


The original article contains 1,168 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!