Add new comment

Appreciation for the comments from my fellow UW constitutional law professor, David Schwartz. I would add, however, when the article noted these actions were included in the budget bill, I was teased into thinking the more relevant if more complex discussion was forthcoming about including such matters in a budget bill. Given the clarity of the constitution's judicial compensation provision, I'm fairly certain the Walker administration can readily read and comprehend the provision. However, following the logic employed in the article, since the objective is always to have justices seated, the legislature would never be able to increase or diminish judicial salaries. So I'm certain the Walker administration knows full well the current chief justice's decrease could not take effect during her current term; but that doesn't mean it can't be enacted during the term. After all, it would have to be enacted during someone's term. But more importantly, the real problem is our state's officials' propensity to legislate substantive items in the budget bill in the first instance -- either as proposed by the Governor or proposed and enacted by the legislature. This practice only harms we the people, since such 'budget items' are not wrestled through the regular legislative process nor presented to the Governor for approval or veto -- accept as part of a monstrous and infinitely-faceted budget bill where the single item gets overlooked or ignored. Therein lies the real issue here -- and the real problem.