The state Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted original jurisdiction in Planned Parenthood v Urmanski, a case asking whether the right to abortion is protected under the state constitution.
The vote was 4-3, a long the usual ideological grounds.
But there were some real nasties in the writings accompanying the order. Some excerpts are below and there is much, much more, in the document itself.
Rebecca Grassl Bradley, dissenting:
By granting this petition, (Justices) Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Frank Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz continue their crusade to impose their values on the people of Wisconsin, wielding raw political power constitutionally vested in the legislature alone. The people of Wisconsin never consented to unchecked rule by four lawyers who continue to disgrace the institution of the judiciary by entangling this court in policy issues constitutionally reserved to the People and their legislative representatives.
Karofsky, joined by Walsh Bradley, Dallet, and Protasiewicz, concurring:
Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley engages in ad hominem attacks that would be more at home in an ill-advised late-night rant on social media than in a judicial writing — including attempts to paint the court as illegitimate, cell phone screenshots of celebrity tweets, and calling members of the majority — the horror — “lawyers.”
***
Not much of the vitriol deserves to be dignified with a substantive response, except perhaps to note that in granting this case, this court is doing what many other state courts have done, both before and after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., — considering a state constitutional challenge to an abortion-related statute. Deciding important state constitutional questions is not unusual — it’s this court’s job.
Hagedorn, joined by Ziegler, dissenting:
Putting aside the merits of this case, which we will examine in due course, the majority continues to play politics with its pet issues. Abortion divides the public, with passionate advocates on all sides. It is all the more important in politically charged cases like this for us to act like a court and not play favorites. How disappointing that at the moment of testing, the majority fails to apply the same rules to everyone. The signal to a watching public is that, when certain policy issues touch the right nerve, this court will follow the party line, not the law.
Karofsky:
For his part, Justice Hagedorn suggests that this court is bending the rules for this particular case, and that such rule-bending is evidence that we “play politics with [our] pet issues.” While those allegations might make for good political rhetoric, they lack substance and distract from the core work of the court.
***
More troubling than leveling false accusations against his colleagues is Justice Hagedorn’s characterization of the question presented in this petition as a “pet issue.” Regardless of one’s views on the morality, legality, or constitutionality of abortion, it is undeniable that abortion regulation is an issue with immense personal and practical significance to many Wisconsinites. Characterizing and reducing abortion to a “pet issue” is disrespectful, demeaning, and derisive to adults and children who have been impacted by abortion laws and litigation.
Grassl Bradley:
As with other cases the new majority has decided, the outcome appears to be predetermined. Janet Protasiewicz riddled her campaign rhetoric with innuendos about her “values” on abortion, gesturing to her financial supporters how she would rule on abortion-related cases. When asked if she has ever ruled on a case contrary to her values, Protasiewicz dodged and obfuscated. Her position on abortion featured prominently during her successful campaign for a seat on this court. ...
Karofsky:
How can Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley have standing to criticize a colleague for signaling her values on the campaign trail while she did that on her own? How can she call for the recusal of one of her colleagues when she herself voted against a stronger recusal rule while in the majority? And how can she complain about the court granting an original action petition when in the past she too voted to grant original actions tackling controversial constitutional issues?
In a footnote, Karofsky noted that a campaign mailer for Grassl Bradley showed the candidate wearing a National Rifle Association cap and holding a shotgun.
Comments