9 ms·

West Virginia’s Supreme Court Impeachment Crisis

88 points by smacktoward 8y ago

socalnate1 8y ago
This is terrifying in that it's not all that hard to imagine this happening at the federal level in coming years.
- astrodust 8y ago
  They're already half-way there.
  - lamarpye 8y ago
    Sure. Halfway. The proof is so obvious, no need to mention it.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. I guess it might happen if one party (let's just call them the Pinks) holds both houses of Congress. They would probably have to hold the Presidency, too. This party decides to run the country in total disregard to the other party, the established rules, and even the Constitution. Someone brings a lawsuit over something the Pinks have done. The Supreme Court hears it, and rules against the Pinks. Now, for this scenario to work, it would have to be a 9-0 ruling against the Pinks, even though some of the Supreme Court lean toward the other party (let's call them the Browns). Possible? Yes, I suppose. But personally, I find it quite hard to imagine.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 8y ago
    > I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. More likely than impeachment would be expanding the court. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the size of the Court other than it must have a Chief Justice. The number of Justices is set by legislation. A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. 9 worked fine when both parties had strong moderate factions, and so the Court would move a little more conservative under Republicans and a little more Liberal under Democrats. Now the moderate factions have diminished, especially among Republicans, and 9 doesn't provide enough hysteresis.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. No, it can't, at least in terms of a normal legislated expansion, because the immediate effect would be to vastly accelerate the change in the direction of the then-dominant party. Also, a larger court (even beyond the one-time transition) doesn't provide any more stability on average, though it does reduce the variability in the rate of change (doubling the size of the court doesn't change the percent of the court that changes, on average, each Presidential term. But it makes the standard deviation of that percentage less.)
      - tzs 8y ago
        I think reducing the variability does lead to more stability on average. It makes it more likely that a President and the next President appoint the same or nearly the same number of Justices, and so that when the Presidents are from different parties they counter each other. Also, I suspect that on a significantly larger court Justices would be more likely to retire younger, because they would know that their leaving is not going to cause major changes even if they leave during the term of a President they disagree with.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      First: If one side decides to expand the court, I'm pretty sure that "hysteresis" won't be the reason. "We want our side to have more influence" will be the (unstated) reason. Second, though, I'm not sure that you'd get more hysteresis. Let's say that, with a nine-member court, a two-term president is likely to get to appoint two or three justices. Now expand the court to fifteen members, as one side has suggested. Well, now a two-term president is likely to get to appoint four or five justices. I don't think that changes the hysteresis at all.
  - SpikeDad 8y ago
    Seems perfectly logical. Impeach everyone as cover to remove the Democratic majority in the court. The Republicans then get to replace all 9. You don't think the Republicans (oh sorry I mean pinks) aren't capable of such blatant political hackery?
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. I don't think either party is going to have enough of a majority in the Senate (two thirds) to get a conviction on an impeachment any time soon.
  - socalnate1 8y ago
    You are reading this too literally. It doesn't need to be all 9 justices impeached; the point is justices being impeached en masse for largely partisan reasons. That would/could destroy the courts legitimacy and undermine the rule of law.
rayiner 8y ago
This is why it makes me nervous when people suggest we should be able to prosecute members of Congress for insider trading. Imagine how easy it would be for a malicious executive to bypass the separation of powers through an unfounded charge of insider trading: ("you knew about [x] and your grandson traded on it!" where "[x]" is almost anything because Congressmen are privy to so much insider information). And if you didn't think something like that would be abused--maybe in today's political climate you do?
- fredgrott 8y ago
  note, US Constitution holds that any Federal official can be impeached..that includes US Congress members not just Fed Court Judges.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > US Constitution holds that any Federal official can be impeached..that includes US Congress members not just Fed Court Judges. No, the US Constitution does not say members of Congress can be impeached. Only "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" can be impeached (Article I, Section 3). Members of Congress are not "civil Officers", they are elected representatives. Each house of Congress, according to the Constitution, can expel one of its own members by a two-thirds vote (Article I, Section 5), but that is not the same as the impeachment process (which requires the House to vote to impeach--bring the charges--and the Senate to try the case and vote on whether to convict).
- pdonis 8y ago
  > This is why it makes me nervous when people suggest we should be able to prosecute members of Congress for insider trading. I agree that this should not be allowed. A sitting member of Congress can be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the members of his house of Congress, or can be voted out of office at the next election. Those are the only remedies, and should be.
- yardie 8y ago
  I don't have a problem with this. It's the reason there is an emoluments clause in the first place. You take political office and you divest from stocks that could be considered a conflict. And if someone wants to make a claim they'll need to back it up, same as it ever was. Oh, that's not what our politicians did. They just wrote the law that made them exempt from insider trading instead.
ArchTypical 8y ago
> What we are witnessing in West Virginia today is a government destroying itself. It began as a partisan power grab. It may end in the destruction of an entire state judiciary Given the amount of criminality and conviction, I see this as a good thing. Treating the political elites as something more than citizens, is already a corruption of the state body.
- SpikeDad 8y ago
  Really? You approve of Republicans in both houses and the governors office wholesale impeachment of an entire Court? Does the fact that the Governor get to appoint replacements not suggest some sort of power grab going on?
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Does the fact that the Governor get to appoint replacements not suggest some sort of power grab going on? That's doesn't invalidate wrongdoing. I am neither R nor D due to their long standing hipocrisy as organizations.
- codyb 8y ago
  Wouldn't the destruction of the judiciary be akin to continuing the treatment of the political elites as more than citizens? As they're the ones who filed charges, lost in court, and now apparently are proceeding to disregard the courts ruling anyways? I've not seen too many citizens who're able to disregard court rulings.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Wouldn't the destruction of the judiciary be akin to continuing the treatment of the political elites as more than citizens? I don't see how. The court isn't filled with superhumans. They are people and people are fallible, even in groups (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal). If it happens to dismantle a governing body, that's how accountability is supposed to work. That is a possibility.
weliketocode 8y ago
> Justice Menis Ketchum, a Democrat, resigned from the court in July then pleaded guilty to a felony count of wire fraud. We need to hold members of the legislature and judiciary to the same standard as the citizenry. It's just very, very unfortunate that this situation has spiraled so far beyond that.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > We need to hold members of the legislature and judiciary to the same standard as the citizenry. From what I read, only the judiciary can enforce the code of conduct on themselves here.
  - vxNsr 8y ago
    Which is honestly... insane.
excalibur 8y ago
Is it not possible to appeal an individual state's supreme court decisions to the US Supreme Court?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  You can sometimes go from the state Supreme Court to the US Court of Appeals and then to the SCOTUS, but usually only if the case tends to involve some kind of question concerning the US Constitution. Otherwise those courts may decline to hear the case.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    To challenge a state Supreme Court decision, you'd file for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S. 1257. However, there must be an issue of federal law (federal constitution, statute, or regulation). If there is not one, or the only federal issues would not change the outcome, the Supreme Court lacks the power to hear the case, because state supreme courts have the last word on issues of state law. Here, the case is primarily about West Virginia law (impeachment under WV law, who can enforce the Code of Judicial Conduct). There is a federal due process issue, but it can't change the outcome--the WV Supreme Court found the impeachment illegal under WV law, so it doesn't really matter whether it's also illegal under federal due process law. In that case, the state-law decision is called an "adequate independent ground," and the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction (i.e. authority) to hear the case.
    - mmusson 8y ago
      Technically, the Supreme Court decides whether it has jurisdiction.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        The Supreme Court either has jurisdiction or it does not; whether it figures out the correct answer to that question is a separate issue.
- deleted 8y ago
ConceitedCode 8y ago
This was much easier for me to follow / less politically divisive. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/15/west-virginia-botches-impeachment-of-chief-justice-faces-constitutional-crisis-stay-tuned/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/1...
bilbo0s 8y ago
Wow, and I thought Wisconsin was corrupt. I knew that states like Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana rivaled us in corruption, but now I'm starting to wonder if maybe the entire US is just as bent as we are? Maybe all these other states just don't land themselves in the papers as often, but they have all the same problems with public corruption? The US, in general, likely has a much larger problem with public corruption than I thought.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Why is Wisconsin corrupt?
  - glibgil 8y ago
    Lack of ethics
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Could you be more specific?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Seriously? I'm assuming you're not from Wisconsin. I guess I should just run down a few incidents that might give you somewhat of a picture of how things work up here: We've had our share of bent DA's here in Wisconsin. Probably the best story I can tell you about is a DA that would allow drug dealers and other criminals to "contribute to charity" in lieu of going to jail for their crimes. Of course, all of the "charities" they could contribute to were controlled by he and his buddies. (This way they could make sure all the "contributions" went for the benefit of the local community you see.) It got so bad that drug dealers were routing their shipments through that municipality because if you get caught, you just paid the bribe. I mean, "charity". You didn't have to go to jail. I won't go into too much detail on this one, because it's disgusting. That said, we have a juvenile detention facility where the guards were discovered to have using the boys for... Well, I think you can figure it out. If not just Google "Lincoln Hills". (but I'd recommend just ... yeah... just not googling it.) Moving on, we have something called the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. Basically everyone chips in to a fund, via taxes, and that fund gives money to entrepreneurs and businesses to stimulate economic growth. That's the idea. In practice, whatever politician is in power funnels the money to his/her cronies. They're pretty open about it too. So small businesses in the state end up having to make do with whatever they get out of the federal SBA. Because the big political guys take all the money from WEDC. And that's just scratching the surface with the criminal related stuff. There's all kinds of political and public spending related stuff that happens here all the time. There's the typical police corruption that you need to look out for. Man don't even get me started on Wisconsin's part in the VA nursing home scandal. Wisconsin is so bad that at one point there were 100's of thousands of protesters outside our Capitol building in Madison. We're just a really bent state, and there's not much that can be done about it because of how we're set up. There's a lot going on up here. Despite what you may have heard on Netflix, the corruption up here is not ALL about Steven Avery. Illustrative factoid, there is a restaurant in Madison right on the Capitol Square. It's pretty conveniently located for the state senators and assemblypeople. Kind of a nice place too. What's it's name? "Graft", I kid you not. Located on the ground floor of a building full of lobbyists. I mean, "lawyers". Right across from the Capitol. I know that sounds just WAY too brazen, but it's a true story. Thing is though, I wonder if all states have this stuff going on? Perhaps in Wisconsin we're just always complaining about it and it gets in the papers? Then it makes us think Wisconsin is worse than other states, when really, the other states are just as bad, but maybe the people in those other states have just stopped complaining.
krapp 8y ago
Also see this Lawful Masses video about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRQapb7DLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRQapb7DLs
40acres 8y ago
Increased polarization has caused the legislative Branch at all levels to grind to a halt. As a result the majority party, in many cases Republicans, have used illiberal means to consolidate power. As a result are heading down a path of making the court so politicized that the rulings lose their backing. The West Virginia cases is ridiculous but I won't be surprised if there are other shenanigans w.r.t the court being executed all across the country.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Increased polarization has caused the legislative Branch at all levels to grind to a halt. As a result the majority party, in many cases Republicans, have used illiberal means to consolidate power. I think calling it "polarization" and using similar concepts that don't assign blame is the modern political correctness. If we don't identify the cause of the disease, we can't even begin the cure it; it's a self-inflected wound. If there's a problem with the switches in your datacenter, it would be shooting yourself in the foot to say 'the whole infrastructure is freezing up'. No, it's the switches. I'm not partisan in that I don't care for one party or another, but I believe the disease in the U.S. is the Republican Party. They are the ones implementing all these things, disregarding all limits, moral, democratic and otherwise, to the pursuit of power. They elected this president, embraced torture, deny climate change, embrace naked partisanship in the federal judiciary (and in states), etc. etc etc. We can say bipartisan things, but until Americans recognize the disease and act, they will get sicker, and the condition of democracy is becoming grave now.
kodablah 8y ago
A strange tone to this article. "X did this bad thing and obviously this bad thing because they are obviously bad." "To be clear, while excuse here and excuse here, Y did a thing that could be perceived as bad, but not as bad because it's their rules and it has been done before." Really tough to read. Also, I am not very familiar with the case, can anyone shed any light on whether the justices are remorseful for their overspendings and other wrongdoings? Any links to apologies or denials? Are some not voluntarily resigning because they don't feel like what they did was bad enough? I clearly understand the legislature's faults in this story just want more details from the judges themselves.

88 points by smacktoward 8y ago

socalnate1 8y ago

This is terrifying in that it's not all that hard to imagine this happening at the federal level in coming years.

astrodust 8y ago
They're already half-way there.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Sure. Halfway. The proof is so obvious, no need to mention it.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. I guess it might happen if one party (let's just call them the Pinks) holds both houses of Congress. They would probably have to hold the Presidency, too. This party decides to run the country in total disregard to the other party, the established rules, and even the Constitution. Someone brings a lawsuit over something the Pinks have done. The Supreme Court hears it, and rules against the Pinks. Now, for this scenario to work, it would have to be a 9-0 ruling against the Pinks, even though some of the Supreme Court lean toward the other party (let's call them the Browns). Possible? Yes, I suppose. But personally, I find it quite hard to imagine.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 8y ago
  > I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I really have a hard time seeing that happening. More likely than impeachment would be expanding the court. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the size of the Court other than it must have a Chief Justice. The number of Justices is set by legislation. A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. 9 worked fine when both parties had strong moderate factions, and so the Court would move a little more conservative under Republicans and a little more Liberal under Democrats. Now the moderate factions have diminished, especially among Republicans, and 9 doesn't provide enough hysteresis.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the Court can change in the short term. No, it can't, at least in terms of a normal legislated expansion, because the immediate effect would be to vastly accelerate the change in the direction of the then-dominant party. Also, a larger court (even beyond the one-time transition) doesn't provide any more stability on average, though it does reduce the variability in the rate of change (doubling the size of the court doesn't change the percent of the court that changes, on average, each Presidential term. But it makes the standard deviation of that percentage less.)
    - tzs 8y ago
      I think reducing the variability does lead to more stability on average. It makes it more likely that a President and the next President appoint the same or nearly the same number of Justices, and so that when the Presidents are from different parties they counter each other. Also, I suspect that on a significantly larger court Justices would be more likely to retire younger, because they would know that their leaving is not going to cause major changes even if they leave during the term of a President they disagree with.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    First: If one side decides to expand the court, I'm pretty sure that "hysteresis" won't be the reason. "We want our side to have more influence" will be the (unstated) reason. Second, though, I'm not sure that you'd get more hysteresis. Let's say that, with a nine-member court, a two-term president is likely to get to appoint two or three justices. Now expand the court to fifteen members, as one side has suggested. Well, now a two-term president is likely to get to appoint four or five justices. I don't think that changes the hysteresis at all.
- SpikeDad 8y ago
  Seems perfectly logical. Impeach everyone as cover to remove the Democratic majority in the court. The Republicans then get to replace all 9. You don't think the Republicans (oh sorry I mean pinks) aren't capable of such blatant political hackery?
- pdonis 8y ago
  > I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. I don't think either party is going to have enough of a majority in the Senate (two thirds) to get a conviction on an impeachment any time soon.
- socalnate1 8y ago
  You are reading this too literally. It doesn't need to be all 9 justices impeached; the point is justices being impeached en masse for largely partisan reasons. That would/could destroy the courts legitimacy and undermine the rule of law.

rayiner 8y ago

This is why it makes me nervous when people suggest we should be able to prosecute members of Congress for insider trading. Imagine how easy it would be for a malicious executive to bypass the separation of powers through an unfounded charge of insider trading: ("you knew about [x] and your grandson traded on it!" where "[x]" is almost anything because Congressmen are privy to so much insider information). And if you didn't think something like that would be abused--maybe in today's political climate you do?

fredgrott 8y ago
note, US Constitution holds that any Federal official can be impeached..that includes US Congress members not just Fed Court Judges.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > US Constitution holds that any Federal official can be impeached..that includes US Congress members not just Fed Court Judges. No, the US Constitution does not say members of Congress can be impeached. Only "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" can be impeached (Article I, Section 3). Members of Congress are not "civil Officers", they are elected representatives. Each house of Congress, according to the Constitution, can expel one of its own members by a two-thirds vote (Article I, Section 5), but that is not the same as the impeachment process (which requires the House to vote to impeach--bring the charges--and the Senate to try the case and vote on whether to convict).
pdonis 8y ago
> This is why it makes me nervous when people suggest we should be able to prosecute members of Congress for insider trading. I agree that this should not be allowed. A sitting member of Congress can be expelled by a two-thirds vote of the members of his house of Congress, or can be voted out of office at the next election. Those are the only remedies, and should be.
yardie 8y ago
I don't have a problem with this. It's the reason there is an emoluments clause in the first place. You take political office and you divest from stocks that could be considered a conflict. And if someone wants to make a claim they'll need to back it up, same as it ever was. Oh, that's not what our politicians did. They just wrote the law that made them exempt from insider trading instead.

ArchTypical 8y ago

> What we are witnessing in West Virginia today is a government destroying itself. It began as a partisan power grab. It may end in the destruction of an entire state judiciary Given the amount of criminality and conviction, I see this as a good thing. Treating the political elites as something more than citizens, is already a corruption of the state body.

SpikeDad 8y ago
Really? You approve of Republicans in both houses and the governors office wholesale impeachment of an entire Court? Does the fact that the Governor get to appoint replacements not suggest some sort of power grab going on?
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Does the fact that the Governor get to appoint replacements not suggest some sort of power grab going on? That's doesn't invalidate wrongdoing. I am neither R nor D due to their long standing hipocrisy as organizations.
codyb 8y ago
Wouldn't the destruction of the judiciary be akin to continuing the treatment of the political elites as more than citizens? As they're the ones who filed charges, lost in court, and now apparently are proceeding to disregard the courts ruling anyways? I've not seen too many citizens who're able to disregard court rulings.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Wouldn't the destruction of the judiciary be akin to continuing the treatment of the political elites as more than citizens? I don't see how. The court isn't filled with superhumans. They are people and people are fallible, even in groups (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal). If it happens to dismantle a governing body, that's how accountability is supposed to work. That is a possibility.

weliketocode 8y ago

> Justice Menis Ketchum, a Democrat, resigned from the court in July then pleaded guilty to a felony count of wire fraud. We need to hold members of the legislature and judiciary to the same standard as the citizenry. It's just very, very unfortunate that this situation has spiraled so far beyond that.

kodablah 8y ago
> We need to hold members of the legislature and judiciary to the same standard as the citizenry. From what I read, only the judiciary can enforce the code of conduct on themselves here.
- vxNsr 8y ago
  Which is honestly... insane.

excalibur 8y ago

Is it not possible to appeal an individual state's supreme court decisions to the US Supreme Court?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
You can sometimes go from the state Supreme Court to the US Court of Appeals and then to the SCOTUS, but usually only if the case tends to involve some kind of question concerning the US Constitution. Otherwise those courts may decline to hear the case.
- rayiner 8y ago
  To challenge a state Supreme Court decision, you'd file for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S. 1257. However, there must be an issue of federal law (federal constitution, statute, or regulation). If there is not one, or the only federal issues would not change the outcome, the Supreme Court lacks the power to hear the case, because state supreme courts have the last word on issues of state law. Here, the case is primarily about West Virginia law (impeachment under WV law, who can enforce the Code of Judicial Conduct). There is a federal due process issue, but it can't change the outcome--the WV Supreme Court found the impeachment illegal under WV law, so it doesn't really matter whether it's also illegal under federal due process law. In that case, the state-law decision is called an "adequate independent ground," and the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction (i.e. authority) to hear the case.
  - mmusson 8y ago
    Technically, the Supreme Court decides whether it has jurisdiction.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The Supreme Court either has jurisdiction or it does not; whether it figures out the correct answer to that question is a separate issue.
deleted 8y ago

ConceitedCode 8y ago

This was much easier for me to follow / less politically divisive. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/15/west-virginia-botches-impeachment-of-chief-justice-faces-constitutional-crisis-stay-tuned/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/1...

bilbo0s 8y ago

Wow, and I thought Wisconsin was corrupt. I knew that states like Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana rivaled us in corruption, but now I'm starting to wonder if maybe the entire US is just as bent as we are? Maybe all these other states just don't land themselves in the papers as often, but they have all the same problems with public corruption? The US, in general, likely has a much larger problem with public corruption than I thought.

lamarpye 8y ago
Why is Wisconsin corrupt?
- glibgil 8y ago
  Lack of ethics
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Could you be more specific?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Seriously? I'm assuming you're not from Wisconsin. I guess I should just run down a few incidents that might give you somewhat of a picture of how things work up here: We've had our share of bent DA's here in Wisconsin. Probably the best story I can tell you about is a DA that would allow drug dealers and other criminals to "contribute to charity" in lieu of going to jail for their crimes. Of course, all of the "charities" they could contribute to were controlled by he and his buddies. (This way they could make sure all the "contributions" went for the benefit of the local community you see.) It got so bad that drug dealers were routing their shipments through that municipality because if you get caught, you just paid the bribe. I mean, "charity". You didn't have to go to jail. I won't go into too much detail on this one, because it's disgusting. That said, we have a juvenile detention facility where the guards were discovered to have using the boys for... Well, I think you can figure it out. If not just Google "Lincoln Hills". (but I'd recommend just ... yeah... just not googling it.) Moving on, we have something called the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. Basically everyone chips in to a fund, via taxes, and that fund gives money to entrepreneurs and businesses to stimulate economic growth. That's the idea. In practice, whatever politician is in power funnels the money to his/her cronies. They're pretty open about it too. So small businesses in the state end up having to make do with whatever they get out of the federal SBA. Because the big political guys take all the money from WEDC. And that's just scratching the surface with the criminal related stuff. There's all kinds of political and public spending related stuff that happens here all the time. There's the typical police corruption that you need to look out for. Man don't even get me started on Wisconsin's part in the VA nursing home scandal. Wisconsin is so bad that at one point there were 100's of thousands of protesters outside our Capitol building in Madison. We're just a really bent state, and there's not much that can be done about it because of how we're set up. There's a lot going on up here. Despite what you may have heard on Netflix, the corruption up here is not ALL about Steven Avery. Illustrative factoid, there is a restaurant in Madison right on the Capitol Square. It's pretty conveniently located for the state senators and assemblypeople. Kind of a nice place too. What's it's name? "Graft", I kid you not. Located on the ground floor of a building full of lobbyists. I mean, "lawyers". Right across from the Capitol. I know that sounds just WAY too brazen, but it's a true story. Thing is though, I wonder if all states have this stuff going on? Perhaps in Wisconsin we're just always complaining about it and it gets in the papers? Then it makes us think Wisconsin is worse than other states, when really, the other states are just as bad, but maybe the people in those other states have just stopped complaining.

krapp 8y ago

Also see this Lawful Masses video about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRQapb7DLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRQapb7DLs

40acres 8y ago

Increased polarization has caused the legislative Branch at all levels to grind to a halt. As a result the majority party, in many cases Republicans, have used illiberal means to consolidate power. As a result are heading down a path of making the court so politicized that the rulings lose their backing. The West Virginia cases is ridiculous but I won't be surprised if there are other shenanigans w.r.t the court being executed all across the country.

forapurpose 8y ago
> Increased polarization has caused the legislative Branch at all levels to grind to a halt. As a result the majority party, in many cases Republicans, have used illiberal means to consolidate power. I think calling it "polarization" and using similar concepts that don't assign blame is the modern political correctness. If we don't identify the cause of the disease, we can't even begin the cure it; it's a self-inflected wound. If there's a problem with the switches in your datacenter, it would be shooting yourself in the foot to say 'the whole infrastructure is freezing up'. No, it's the switches. I'm not partisan in that I don't care for one party or another, but I believe the disease in the U.S. is the Republican Party. They are the ones implementing all these things, disregarding all limits, moral, democratic and otherwise, to the pursuit of power. They elected this president, embraced torture, deny climate change, embrace naked partisanship in the federal judiciary (and in states), etc. etc etc. We can say bipartisan things, but until Americans recognize the disease and act, they will get sicker, and the condition of democracy is becoming grave now.

kodablah 8y ago

A strange tone to this article. "X did this bad thing and obviously this bad thing because they are obviously bad." "To be clear, while excuse here and excuse here, Y did a thing that could be perceived as bad, but not as bad because it's their rules and it has been done before." Really tough to read. Also, I am not very familiar with the case, can anyone shed any light on whether the justices are remorseful for their overspendings and other wrongdoings? Any links to apologies or denials? Are some not voluntarily resigning because they don't feel like what they did was bad enough? I clearly understand the legislature's faults in this story just want more details from the judges themselves.