Shirley judges that democracy doesn't matter much

So on Tuesday voters in Wisconsin amended the state constitution to change how the chief justice of the state supreme court is selected. Previously the chief justice was chosen strictly by seniority. The new rule allows the justices themselves to vote for their chief.

Shirley Abrahamson is the chief justice, based on the old system. The new system will bring the end of her term, as Abrahamson is a liberal and the majority of the justices are conservative. Abrahamson doesn't like that much, so the will of the voters be damned:

Abrahamson, 81, argued in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Madison that the change should not be applied until after her current term ends in four years or if she leaves before then.

To have the selection process change immediately would shorten the 10-year term of office to which Abrahamson was elected as chief justice, she argued, and would therefore violate her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection rights.
She also is asking for a temporary restraining order to block the other six justices on the court from taking any action to remove her as chief justice.

The lawsuit names the other members of the court and top state officials charged with implementing the amendment. It was brought on behalf of Abrahamson and a handful of state residents who voted for her. Their votes, the lawsuit argues, will be “diluted and results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled.”

Why does this matter? The chief justice sets the agenda in court and Abrahamson has been using her power to delay rulings that she doesn't particularly like. Since she doesn't like the result of the vote, she figures she can delay that, too, apparently.

The notion that she ran for Chief Justice is absurd. You can only run for office as a justice. Had her opponent prevailed in 2009, that individual would not have become chief justice, so it's absurd to argue that she was running for that position. And the term of her office won't be shortened; she was elected to a 10-year term as a justice, so she will remain on the state supreme court. She just won't have control of the agenda.