Wisconsin Megathread v3: GOP in MASSIVE DISARRAY

[MasterJedi]

Campground near Hancock, WI. Large fifth wheel camper with an American flag at the top of a pole (with a picture of a male Buck deer covering most of it) and a Trump flag. Cult.

[Gass3268]

Justice Bradly is going through things.

https://twitter.com/DavidNir/status/1691936265229279532?s=20

[Duke of York]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

[Not Me, Us]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Republicans really are the biggest sore losers ever to exist.

[TML]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

[Not Me, Us]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Would the State Senate have to confirm the appointee?

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

I was just thinking that. There's nothing stopping him from just reappointing Protasiewicz, right?

[TML]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Would the State Senate have to confirm the appointee?

No, said appointee would serve until the next general election cycle, when the appointee’s seat would be on the ballot.

[Duke of York]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

I was just thinking that. There's nothing stopping him from just reappointing Protasiewicz, right?

technically no and its what Evers should do.

[windjammer]

Wisconsin republicans aren't going to do that not because they are pro democracy but simply because it would be pointless as Evers could simply reappoint her lol.

[Gass3268]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

Here is the fear. The Assembly impeaches Protasiewicz, which only requires a simple majority. She would then lose all authority until there is a judgement in her trial in the Senate, which there it would require a 2/3rds majority to remove. The issue is that the Senate could then sit on starting her trial for as long as they want. Basically turn the court into a 3-3 tie for as long as they wish.

That would be their plan. Now to get around that, my guess is that Protasiewicz would sue in Dane County requiring that they start her trial, they would agree, the appeals court would as well, and a 3-3 tie at the Supreme Court would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and they'd have to get on with the trial. But this would all take time and push the any redistricting ruling way to close to 2024, to the point the Federal courts would probably step in and say that it's too close to the election to change the maps.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

Here is the fear. The Assembly impeaches Protasiewicz, which only requires a simple majority. She would then lose all authority until there is a judgement in her trial in the Senate, which there it would require a 2/3rds majority to remove. The issue is that the Senate could then sit on starting her trial for as long as they want. Basically turn the court into a 3-3 tie for as long as they wish.

That would be their plan. Now to get around that, my guess is that Protasiewicz would sue in Dane County requiring that they start her trial, they would agree, the appeals court would as well, and a 3-3 tie at the Supreme Court would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and they'd have to get on with the trial. But this would all take time and push the any redistricting ruling way to close to 2024, to the point the Federal courts would probably step in and say that it's too close to the election to change the maps.

Yeeesh. Well, let's hope it doesn't come to this.

[Duke of York]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

Here is the fear. The Assembly impeaches Protasiewicz, which only requires a simple majority. She would then lose all authority until there is a judgement in her trial in the Senate, which there it would require a 2/3rds majority to remove. The issue is that the Senate could then sit on starting her trial for as long as they want. Basically turn the court into a 3-3 tie for as long as they wish.

That would be their plan. Now to get around that, my guess is that Protasiewicz would sue in Dane County requiring that they start her trial, they would agree, the appeals court would as well, and a 3-3 tie at the Supreme Court would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and they'd have to get on with the trial. But this would all take time and push the any redistricting ruling way to close to 2024, to the point the Federal courts would probably step in and say that it's too close to the election to change the maps.

But if a lower court has already ruled that ruling would stand.

[politicallefty]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

[Virginiá]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

[politicallefty]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

It is rather surprising overall though. Ohio and Michigan basically stand alone in the East in that respect. Wisconsin does allow for recall though, which most states do not. The signature requirements are incredibly stringent though. I'm still amazed they managed to get a recall election on the ballot statewide in 2012 when the requirement is 25% of the votes cast for governor in the particular jurisdiction within 60 days. However, Wisconsin's version of a recall is really less that and more of a forced election.

[Хahar 🤔]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

The counterpoint is that if you vote for a ballot initiative amendment, you'll be stuck with ballot initiatives forever. I can't think of a better reason to vote against it.

[Sol]

https://www.wpr.org/assembly-speaker-robin-vos-calls-justice-janet-protasiewicz-recuse-cases

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker renews calls for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from certain cases

Robin Vos raises the possibility of starting impeachment process, but cautions it should be not be undertaken lightly

Remember that Evers would appoint a replacement to any justice who is successfully impeached, and we all know the likely political leanings of such an appointment.

Could he just immediately reappoint Protasiewicz? That'd be amazing.

Here is the fear. The Assembly impeaches Protasiewicz, which only requires a simple majority. She would then lose all authority until there is a judgement in her trial in the Senate, which there it would require a 2/3rds majority to remove. The issue is that the Senate could then sit on starting her trial for as long as they want. Basically turn the court into a 3-3 tie for as long as they wish.

That would be their plan. Now to get around that, my guess is that Protasiewicz would sue in Dane County requiring that they start her trial, they would agree, the appeals court would as well, and a 3-3 tie at the Supreme Court would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and they'd have to get on with the trial. But this would all take time and push the any redistricting ruling way to close to 2024, to the point the Federal courts would probably step in and say that it's too close to the election to change the maps.

Yeeesh. Well, let's hope it doesn't come to this.

I mean, doesn't that sound like the WIGOP? They almost certainly will -- their only goal is total concentration of power.

[Virginiá]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

The counterpoint is that if you vote for a ballot initiative amendment, you'll be stuck with ballot initiatives forever. I can't think of a better reason to vote against it.

I guess it depends how you look at it. Initiatives have been a key driver for marijuana legalization, and we'd never be where we are without it. It's also allowed voters in some states to end gerrymandering and roll back voter restrictions. Granted, it gets abused as well at times, but to me personally, it's well worth it. There are so many policies that never would have had a chance without voters being able to put it to a vote themselves.

[Хahar 🤔]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

The counterpoint is that if you vote for a ballot initiative amendment, you'll be stuck with ballot initiatives forever. I can't think of a better reason to vote against it.

I guess it depends how you look at it. Initiatives have been a key driver for marijuana legalization, and we'd never be where we are without it. It's also allowed voters in some states to end gerrymandering and roll back voter restrictions. Granted, it gets abused as well at times, but to me personally, it's well worth it. There are so many policies that never would have had a chance without voters being able to put it to a vote themselves.

Initiatives are a great tool of special interests to do an end run around the legislature and buy legislation, and then of course once they get their legislation it can't ever be changed without an initiative, which nobody can ever pursue because it would be cripplingly expensive to defeat the corporation. In 2020 we got Proposition 22, which means that the legislature can never regulate the working conditions of Uber or Lyft drivers; in 2010 we nearly got Proposition 16, which would have effectively banned municipalities from replacing PG&E with municipally owned power providers. There are plenty more examples of corporations using the initiative process to buy laws that could never possibly be passed in the legislature because they are odious to anyone who understands them.

The initiative process is also a great tool to weaponize in industrial disputes, because doing so only comes at the expense of voters who have to deal with frivolous initiatives. When I filled out my ballot there were so many things to vote on that at the end my hand was quite literally hurting. Of course I'm not competent to decide on any of this, because that's what elected legislators are for.

I care much less about marijuana legislation than I care about the place I live in having a functional tax base, which it never will because the initiative process allowed economically illiterate voters in 1978 to have their say. That can't ever be fixed because doing so would require a ballot measure that could never withstand the unfathomable sums of money that would be spent against it. The more direct democracy you have, the more you hate it.

[politicallefty]

Initiatives are a great tool of special interests to do an end run around the legislature and buy legislation, and then of course once they get their legislation it can't ever be changed without an initiative, which nobody can ever pursue because it would be cripplingly expensive to defeat the corporation. In 2020 we got Proposition 22, which means that the legislature can never regulate the working conditions of Uber or Lyft drivers; in 2010 we nearly got Proposition 16, which would have effectively banned municipalities from replacing PG&E with municipally owned power providers. There are plenty more examples of corporations using the initiative process to buy laws that could never possibly be passed in the legislature because they are odious to anyone who understands them.

The initiative process is also a great tool to weaponize in industrial disputes, because doing so only comes at the expense of voters who have to deal with frivolous initiatives. When I filled out my ballot there were so many things to vote on that at the end my hand was quite literally hurting. Of course I'm not competent to decide on any of this, because that's what elected legislators are for.

I care much less about marijuana legislation than I care about the place I live in having a functional tax base, which it never will because the initiative process allowed economically illiterate voters in 1978 to have their say. That can't ever be fixed because doing so would require a ballot measure that could never withstand the unfathomable sums of money that would be spent against it. The more direct democracy you have, the more you hate it.

I think you make very good points here, but it does seem to depend on the state. The initiative system in California has been horrendously corrupted. It is indeed a nightmare. However, many other states without this process have entrenched majorities that are completely irresponsive to the people. Wisconsin has a Republican supermajority in the state Senate and nearly the same in the state House. The courts are literally the last recourse in that state and that might not even be enough when they have enough votes to impeach and remove anyone from office.

The initiative process wouldn't really be as necessary as it is if we had responsive government and political parties. There are a multitude of reasons for that, not least of which being the fact that most states have largely adopted the federal model. For most of this country's history, that was not the case. At the very least, states should have a unicameral legislature. I'd prefer a parliamentary system for most states, but not everyone has to go that far. I do think California would be far better off with a unicameral parliamentary system.

[Badger]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

The counterpoint is that if you vote for a ballot initiative amendment, you'll be stuck with ballot initiatives forever. I can't think of a better reason to vote against it.

I guess it depends how you look at it. Initiatives have been a key driver for marijuana legalization, and we'd never be where we are without it. It's also allowed voters in some states to end gerrymandering and roll back voter restrictions. Granted, it gets abused as well at times, but to me personally, it's well worth it. There are so many policies that never would have had a chance without voters being able to put it to a vote themselves.

Not to mention that, just like prohibition, the voters can choose to repeal any initiative they initially passed. Without voter referendums, they're basically stuck and effed by the legislature however the latter chooses, especially with a state as gerrymandered as wisconsin.

[Nhoj]

This certainly looks how sane and functioning democracies work.

How does Wisconsin, at least one heart of the Progressive movement, not have a robust initiative and referendum process?

Voters had a chance 100+ years ago but they shot it down as no party really made a case for it, and the Dems/GOP were publicly against it. Probably a good example of voters not really thinking too hard about what they were voting for.

Never go against a ballot initiative amendment. It's rare for a legislature to offer that and if you turn it down once, you probably won't get another opportunity. Lawmakers hate sharing power.

The counterpoint is that if you vote for a ballot initiative amendment, you'll be stuck with ballot initiatives forever. I can't think of a better reason to vote against it.

I guess it depends how you look at it. Initiatives have been a key driver for marijuana legalization, and we'd never be where we are without it. It's also allowed voters in some states to end gerrymandering and roll back voter restrictions. Granted, it gets abused as well at times, but to me personally, it's well worth it. There are so many policies that never would have had a chance without voters being able to put it to a vote themselves.

Initiatives are a great tool of special interests to do an end run around the legislature and buy legislation, and then of course once they get their legislation it can't ever be changed without an initiative, which nobody can ever pursue because it would be cripplingly expensive to defeat the corporation. In 2020 we got Proposition 22, which means that the legislature can never regulate the working conditions of Uber or Lyft drivers; in 2010 we nearly got Proposition 16, which would have effectively banned municipalities from replacing PG&E with municipally owned power providers. There are plenty more examples of corporations using the initiative process to buy laws that could never possibly be passed in the legislature because they are odious to anyone who understands them.

The initiative process is also a great tool to weaponize in industrial disputes, because doing so only comes at the expense of voters who have to deal with frivolous initiatives. When I filled out my ballot there were so many things to vote on that at the end my hand was quite literally hurting. Of course I'm not competent to decide on any of this, because that's what elected legislators are for.

I care much less about marijuana legislation than I care about the place I live in having a functional tax base, which it never will because the initiative process allowed economically illiterate voters in 1978 to have their say. That can't ever be fixed because doing so would require a ballot measure that could never withstand the unfathomable sums of money that would be spent against it. The more direct democracy you have, the more you hate it.

Yes and in Wisconsin this potentially would have seen us restoring the death penalty in 2006, something we abolished in 1853. Seeing as it passed in an advisory referendum.

[henster]

If the GOP moves towards impeachment Dems should definitely move quickly to recall Republicans legislators. With a focus on Dan Knodl who barely won his seat in a special earlier this year. If Knodl if recalled Rs lose their supermajority in the Senate and ability to convict and remove any official.