Lips, snouts and assholes, my father used to tell me. These are the integral parts of what we know as America’s signature sausage: the hot dog. So after Justice Patrick Crooks compared open Supreme Court deliberations to making sausage, is it so much the lips and snouts we have to worry about, or the assholes?

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson first proposed the high court’s deliberations see the light of day on Sept. 6, the first time the court met since the alleged June 13 altercation between Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and David Prosser.

Three proposals were on the table: opening all court conferences to the public, opening discussion of which cases the court would accept and releasing transcripts or recordings of deliberations more than a year after opinions were issued. But Abrahamson hasn’t caught many breaks in recent months, and her proposals were soundly rejected by her colleagues last week.

Wisconsin’s high court would have been the first in the nation to approve any such transparency measures, and justices were less than enthused about having their discussions made public, claiming everything from “[stifling] candor” to discussion of the proposal itself standing between a justice and a bathroom break.

Abrahamson plans to introduce further transparency measures, such as relying on an independent body to review whether justices ought to recuse themselves from cases and bringing in experts on small group dynamics to help justices work with each other to resolve issues.

Now, I can’t claim to be anywhere near an expert on judicial proceedings, but when Wisconsinites have such dismally low levels of confidence in our high court, something needs to change. Especially when members of the court aren’t even aware of the problem.

Justice Patience Roggensack, in an impressive feat of obliviousness, said Abrahamson’s proposal may even suggest the court has significant issues that need to be resolved. Unthinkable, I know. Moreover, it’s not only the insinuation of rifts below the surface, but those good-for-nothing journalists exploiting a few, simple misunderstandings between justices in order to sell newspapers (seriously though, buy some papers).

I’ll give it to the justices who disagreed with Abrahamson. The idea of having the public eye constantly scrutinizing one’s every word can seem daunting and could possibly have a chilling effect on candid and open discussion. But we’re talking about something much more akin to C-SPAN than “Jersey Shore.” Well, for now at least.

What fails to rise to the surface is the fundamental flaw in the electing of our justices and the inherent partisanship and outside influence that comes along with it. If we mean to truly address our problems, we have to do more than stick a Band-Aid on the sucking chest wound that is our state judiciary.

Abrahamson may have some lofty goals for the court (justices keeping their hands to themselves, being held accountable for statements and decisions that could have lasting implications, etc.), but seeking to bring some sense of civility and transparency to the court shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.

The sausage-making that goes on in the court’s chambers is not pretty, nor should it be. It should be thorough and open to constant reexamination. But no matter how many lips, snouts and, yes, assholes, go into it, we’re all going to have to take a bite sooner or later.

Jake Begun ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.