Chief Justice Ziegler's recent actions - including not reappointing Chief Judge Lisa Neubauer - show she's determined to lead the Wisconsin Supreme Court further into the abyss.
I'm curious how an administrative position like this can "move the court" in a "more conservative" or "more liberal" direction. They don't, as far as you've laid out, get to decide what cases an appeals court accepts, or who actually sits on the court. Ziegler may well be trying to reward her friends and punish her enemies, which is petty, but will it really change the substance of precedent and opinion generated by the courts?
"Fourth, the chief judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ultimately determines when an appeal that would otherwise be decided by one court of appeals judge is to be decided by a three-judge panel. Finally, the chief judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is responsible for selecting which judges serve on a judicial conduct panel—which makes an initial recommendation regarding the appropriate level of discipline a judge should receive for engaging in judicial misconduct."
So, the chief judge does choose which judges will serve on a judicial conduct panel. I'd say that could, in theory, move the court of appeals in a more conservative direction (i.e., by appointing more conservative judges to those panels, who are more likely to be deferential to misconduct by conservative judges - or like the recent dissent by Justice Rebecca Bradley in a judicial discipline case, give legitimacy to otherwise inappropriate judicial conduct.
Additionally, by having the power to covert any one-judge appeal to a three-judge panel, the chief judge can covert what otherwise may be an unpublished (and thus not binding precedent) by a more liberal judge into a potential 2-1 published decision (and thus binding precedent) with a conservative majority opinion and a dissenting opinion by a more liberal judge.
These are the types of things that are overlooked. Will there actually be major changes by the new chief judge? Only time will tell. But it's clear he is being appointed to have the discretion to move the court of appeals in a more conservative direction.
I'm curious how an administrative position like this can "move the court" in a "more conservative" or "more liberal" direction. They don't, as far as you've laid out, get to decide what cases an appeals court accepts, or who actually sits on the court. Ziegler may well be trying to reward her friends and punish her enemies, which is petty, but will it really change the substance of precedent and opinion generated by the courts?
"Fourth, the chief judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ultimately determines when an appeal that would otherwise be decided by one court of appeals judge is to be decided by a three-judge panel. Finally, the chief judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is responsible for selecting which judges serve on a judicial conduct panel—which makes an initial recommendation regarding the appropriate level of discipline a judge should receive for engaging in judicial misconduct."
So, the chief judge does choose which judges will serve on a judicial conduct panel. I'd say that could, in theory, move the court of appeals in a more conservative direction (i.e., by appointing more conservative judges to those panels, who are more likely to be deferential to misconduct by conservative judges - or like the recent dissent by Justice Rebecca Bradley in a judicial discipline case, give legitimacy to otherwise inappropriate judicial conduct.
Additionally, by having the power to covert any one-judge appeal to a three-judge panel, the chief judge can covert what otherwise may be an unpublished (and thus not binding precedent) by a more liberal judge into a potential 2-1 published decision (and thus binding precedent) with a conservative majority opinion and a dissenting opinion by a more liberal judge.
These are the types of things that are overlooked. Will there actually be major changes by the new chief judge? Only time will tell. But it's clear he is being appointed to have the discretion to move the court of appeals in a more conservative direction.