Full Text Of WI Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's Powerful Dissent Last Week

[Ellipsis]

On the collective bargaining case...

<snipped to the bottom>

Nos. 2011AP613-LV & 2011AP765-W.ssa


"If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. . . . Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)."



¶127 The resoluteness called for by Justice Brandeis is no less applicable to the observance of the fundamental principles of the courts in our system of government. Unreasoned judgments breed contempt for the law. The majority, by sacrificing honest reasoning, leads us down a pernicious path. The order today departs from fundamental principles. It fails to abide by the court's Constitutional authority and its own rules and procedures and harms the rights of the people from whom our authority derives.12 The legitimate and constitutional route to decide the issues presented is through an appeal.

¶128 For the reasons stated, I do not join the order.

¶129 I am authorized to state that Justices ANN WALSH BRADLEY and N. PATRICK CROOKS join this writing.

12 Our state constitution declares: "The blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Wis. Const. art. I, § 22.
19


http://solidaritywisconsin.com/content/full-text-wi-supreme-court-chief-justice-shirley-abrahamsons-powerful-dissent-last-week

[Ellipsis]

1. The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law.

They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891. This case law recognizes a court's power to review legislative actions in enacting laws when constitutional directives are at issue.

[Ellipsis]

2. "...the explanations are clearly disingenuous, based on disinformation."

¶80 At first glance, the order appears to provide some support for broad conclusions reached on fundamental and complex issues of law. But on even casual reading, the explanations are clearly disingenuous, based on disinformation.

¶81 Justice Prosser's concurrence is longer than the order. The concurrence consists mostly of a statement of happenings. It is long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant. Like the order, the concurrence reaches unsupported conclusions.

¶82 In hastily reaching judgment, Justice Patience D. Roggensack, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman author an order, joined by Justice David T. Prosser, lacking a reasoned, transparent analysis and incorporating numerous errors of law and fact. This kind of order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has

[Ellipsis]

3. A court's failure to follow rules and a court's failure to provide a sufficient...

¶85 A court's failure to follow rules and a court's failure to provide a sufficient, forthright, and reasoned analysis undermine both the court's processes and the decision itself. Only with a reasoned, accurate analysis can a court assure the litigants and the public that a decision is made on the basis of the facts and law, free from a judge's personal ideology and free from external pressure by the executive or legislative branches, by partisan political parties, by public opinion, or by special interest groups.

I ¶86 At its most basic level this case is about the need for
government officials to follow the Wisconsin Constitution and the laws.

[Ellipsis]

4. The legislature must play by the rules of the Wisconsin Constitution and the laws.

¶90 The legislature must play by the rules of the Wisconsin Constitution and the laws.

¶91 Playing by the rules and playing fair are integral to public trust and confidence in our government officials—— legislative, executive, and judicial. Public trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch is engendered by a court's issuing a reasoned public decision based on public records after public arguments. The judicial branch claims legitimacy by the reasoning of its decisions. "Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification."4

¶92 Trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch as an institution is critical at all times but especially when a case has high public visibility, is mired in partisan

[Ellipsis]

5. There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legis. and exec. powers.

[Ellipsis]

6. .

[csziggy]

7. K&R

[eShirl]

8. k&r