Playing politics is perhaps one of the most hated aspects of our government system, but it’s exactly what state Republicans are doing in trying to oust Shirley Abrahamson, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

Abrahamson, who taught at the University of Wisconsin Law School, became a Supreme Court justice in 1976, spending 19 of those years as the chief justice. As Supreme Court justices are elected every ten years, she has won four consecutive elections, but her tenure now faces a brutal two-pronged attack from legislative Republicans.

Addressing Wisconsin’s trailing national job and wage growth or the looming budget deficit that’s roughly $2 billion was not the priority of the new year. Instead, the Republican-led Legislature chose to focus on passing a constitutional amendment which would fundamentally change the state’s Supreme Court if voters approve it in April.

The chief justice of the Supreme Court is currently automatically appointed according to seniority, as the state’s constitution mandates. If passed, the new method would be based on a vote of the justices. This would break a 126-year tradition, certainly unique for the party that loves crying, “Constitution!” whenever something doesn’t go their way (like in Obamacare or immigration).  Without going into much detail, the proposal’s sponsor, state Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, justified its implementation by saying it was not aimed at a specific individual, while other supporters agree that it is more efficient and gives justices a choice in who will lead them.

That’s not all. More interestingly, the GOP in the Legislature are also pushing to set an age limit of 75 for court justices, meaning Abrahamson, who is currently 81, could be removed. It could affect others as well, with four of the seven justices possibly being forced to retire in the next few years.

Why would the GOP want Abrahamson gone? She is known to be a liberal judge, but other judges are as well. Now, the chief justice does not (and should not) act in a partisan manner, but they may exercise procedural influence where they see fit. If the justices within the court were to vote, Abrahamson would likely be defeated by the court’s conservative majority.

The attack on Abrahamson is hypocritical regarding constitutional interpretation. Republican legislators want to “uphold the constitution” when it means reinstating an age limit (there has not been an age limit since it was first called for in 1977). However, in matters of chief justice selection, they prefer a constitutional amendment that has existed for over a century.

The “conservatives” pushing these court changes have provided little reasoning for their decisions, which certainly makes things suspicious. The Republicans in the Senate and Assembly noticed an opportunity to fundamentally change the court in their favor and are fiercely seizing it.

Legislators insist that removing Abrahamson is not the intention of this proposal. Republican lawmakers rejected any option of exempting Abrahamson and the three other judges affected by the bill.

I do not see how we benefit from the age limit and new chief justice methodology. Voters can decide if a justice is too old on Election Day, and allowing justices to decide their chief encourages partisanship.

Why is the nonsensical amendment top priority on the new Legislature’s agenda? Passing the bill now means it has time to be put on the spring ballot for approval. The spring elections in 2013 boasted a 21 percent voter turnout. Of course, Republicans are more likely to vote in these elections, so it’s no wonder the Legislature was so punctual.

Perhaps Abrahamson has done a poor job as justice, but her tenure and history suggest otherwise. It was not Abrahamson who put his hands on fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s neck. That was David Prosser, who also drew controversy when he called Abrahamson “a total bitch” in 2011. Prosser and three other judges ruled in 2011 that justices should not be forced to recuse themselves from a case solely because an involved party donated to their political campaign — Abrahamson angrily dissented. I cannot say I outright that support Abrahamson; I would need to study Wisconsin’s court history over the past four decades. However, based off her re-elections and earned honors, I think it is fair to say that efficiency has not been an issue for the Court.

This level of partisanship is appalling. Not only am I disgusted with the Legislature, but I feel sorry for Abrahamson. She has received 15 honorary doctor of laws degrees, multiple awards for judicial excellence and innovation (as recently as 2009) and is mentioned as one of the top judges in the United States. Abrahamson was even considered for a federal Supreme Court nomination before she was Wisconsin’s chief justice. Now the state she has served for 39 years as Supreme Court is kicking her to the curb for petty political reasons.

I’m sorry, Abrahamson. You deserve more respect than this. Hopefully, the voters that turn out in April will recognize that.

Omer Arain ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political analysis and research and economics.