Fitzwalkerstan’s Attorney General Decides the Law Does Not Apply to Republicans

Fitzwalkerstan’s Attorney General Decides the Law Does Not Apply to Republicans

Fitzwalkerstan’s Attorney General Decides the Law Does Not Apply to Republicans

Wisconsin’s attorney general, a Republican, protects political allies—including anti-labor Governor Scott Walker—by refusing to uphold rule of law or Constitution.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Never let it be said that Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, the most rigid partisan ever to hold the state’s top law-enforcement position, does not take care of his own.

Van Hollen is the latest official to reject the rule of law in a state where the authoritrian antics of state Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald and Governor Scott Walker have earned comparisons with foreign dictators—and referencing of the state by veteran state legislators as “Fitzwalkerstan.”

On Monday, Van Hollen:

1. Decided not to prosecute a disgraced county prosecutor, former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz, on criminal charges of sexual assault, personal misconduct and abuse of the public trust when he reportedly sent thirty text messages trying to strike up an affair with a domestic abuse victim while he prosecuted her ex-boyfriend on a strangulation charge. The then 50-year-old district attorney sent 26-year-old Stephanie Van Groll messages referring to her as “a hot nymph” and asking if she was “the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married DA.” Kratz was forced to resign, but he will not be held to account.

2. Decided—despite the opinions of the legal counsel for the Legislative Reference Bureau, the advice of county and city prosecutors from around the state, and the assessments of leading law professors—that the state constitution and statutes did not need to be respected in the debate over whether Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-union power grab (Act 10) can be unilaterally declared to be in force. The Legislative Reference Bureau made moves to prepare for publication of the legislation last week, but Secretary of State Doug La Follette used his authority to put the law’s publication on hold when a judge issued a temporary restraining order barring publication until questions could be reviewed about whether the legislation had been legally enacted. Van Hollen ignored the constitution, the statutes and the judge’s order and simply issued a press release declaring: “Act 10 is now law.”

On Tuesday, Van Hollen sent state lawyers into court with orders to try and remove the many legal barriers to the governor advancing his agenda. They were quickly shot down by appeals court judges and ran into trouble at the circuit court level, as well, since their arguments were so radically at odds with the Constitution and state statutes.

What do these two actions by Van Hollen have in common?

Certainly not a respect for the state constitution.

Certainly not a respect for the rule of law.

Certainly not a respect for the system of checks and balances that gives the third branch of state government—the judiciary—authority to review the legality of acts taken by the executive and legislative branches.

Certainly not Wisconsin’s tradition—maintained by Democratic and Republican attorneys general from the founding of the state—of keeping the Department of Justice above politics.

What these two actions by Van Hollen have in common is this:

Ken Kratz is a Republican who has campaigned with and for Van Hollen.

Scott Walker is a Republican who has campaigned with and for Van Hollen.

J.B. Van Hollen is a Republican who takes care of his political pals, putting party above principle, above the constitution he has sworn an oath to uphold, and above the rule of law that is the essential underpinning of civil society.

In other words, he is serving not as the attorney general of Wisconsin, but of Fitzwalkerstan.

Like this blog post? Read it on The Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x