Saturday, May 9, 2020

The WI Sup. Ct. hasn't issued its Covid-19 ruling. Here's a possible explanation.

Could it be that Tuesday's live-streamed 'deliberation' which became a revelatory fiasco

Justice Rebecca Bradley fretted that the 'Safer-at-Home' order some echoed the WWII mass kidnapping and forced, three-year imprisonment of scores of thousands of Japanese-American citizens, while Chief Justice Patience Roggensack said Green Bay's extensive virus clusters among meat-packing workers - and others - was not hitting whom she deemed "regular folks" in Brown County.
has convinced the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority to step back - and away - from an even worse outcome - more backlash if they suicidally snatch away from the GOP's little legislative dictators ownership of the pandemic's future human toll?

Gov. Evers' Covid-19 control extension ends in 17 days. The litigating legislators are free to continue their negotiations with Evers. The justices know that's supposed to be happening. 

If the Court continues its delay for several more days, the case goes away and the rightwing 5-2 majority can return to the rest of its old-normal/GOP-obesiant agenda, like affirming the deletion of 200,000 registered voters - many of whom no doubt helped boot the now-lame duck Justice Daniel (I'm Unrecused) Kelly.


George H. said...

"OIbeisant" is such a great word. And it fits.

Anonymous said...

It does seem like the SC and Vos/Fitz are playing hot-potato. I can see why neither one of them, when the virus inevitably doesn't go away, really want to own it. Slow-walking this until it's moot would be the best possible result for the Republicans, both on and off the court.

When it doesn't go away by the end of the current semi-shutdown, what will Fitz/Vos do when Evers parks things for another couple of weeks, assuming the present suit times out w/o resolution? Come back and do it all again?

Republicans seem to think that they can end this crisis by legislative fiat, seasoned with a generous amount of pixie dust. If they get their way at the SC, the cold, wet, fish of reality will slap them repeatedly in the chops. I am not offended by that politically, but am for the resulting unnecessary human and economic carnage.

Anonymous said...

Are there usual protocols for decisions of this type that might inform our scrutiny of the Supremes' likely period of deliberation? Or is this case too unique for comparison? Could they hear Fabick v. Palm first and then release the two decisions at the same time?

Have also been wondering if the scorching media burn over tone deaf comments by the Chief Justice and R. Bradley might have the conservatives calibrating the timing of a decision relative to the May 12 7th CD election. Could R leaders fear that a ruling against the Governor prior to Election Day would energize D voters in the 7th? How would a victory by Tiffany or Zunker distract from or mitigate the announcement of a verdict either way?

After all, it's painfully obvious that the court is fully politicized now so why wouldn't their decision be timed for maximum political effect?

Anonymous said...

Patience will likely come out and demonstrate that what she meant by "regular folks" is merely whether one is a "regular" sort and lifts their pinky while they sip their tea or if they are "those" types who don't elevate their pinky and who work at "those" places.

MAL said...

Suggesting that the Court is gaming this, delaying, to issue a decision consonant with what the Court will issue in Fabick v. Palm seems a good bet.