Immediately, the photo caption compels the question.
“During the governorship of Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has continued its transformation from a congenial, moderately liberal institution into a severely divided conservative stronghold.”
The question: Does the accompanying article represent embarrassing ignorance or purposeful mendacity?
- The court’s “transformation from a congenial” institution began long before Scott Walker became governor. Jim Doyle hadn’t yet taken office when we first heard credible complaints about the recently-ousted chief justice’s dictatorial management style.
- “Moderately liberal” is a suspiciously bland description of a court that held, two decades ago, that manufacturers could be liable for damages even with no evidence that their product had harmed anyone; manufacturing a product similar to one that may harm someone was enough.
- How is it that a “conservative stronghold” is “severely divided?” Is it a “stronghold” or not?
The text supplies additional clues:
“…the haste with which conservatives applied it reveals the partisan nature of the switch.”
“The switch” refers to last month’s election of a new chief justice, “the haste,” to that election occurring as soon as the statewide vote on the authorizing constitutional amendment was certified.
As used here, “haste” is either a deliberate contrivance to discredit the change, or evidence that the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This same court ruled years ago that a constitutional amendment takes effect immediately upon its ratification vote being certified; it must be enforced from that moment on. The opinion was written by then-Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. (See: petard, hoist upon own.)
There will be more of this as long as the Left views the judiciary as a tool to impose its agenda, meaning forever. It helps to realize that the sole aim is to exempt that agenda from public consent.
Those “Celebrate diversity!” bumper stickers are evidently shorthand for “Be just like me or else!”