Rappin' with Dad29, foil-hatted conspiracist

In which local wing-nut Dad29 ("old, nasty") joins the conspiracists.

Take it away, Dad29:

A month or so ago it was clear that [Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann] Sumi's kangaroo-ing was designed to delay a decision. That delay would result in [Supreme Court of Wisconsin] review of the case after Prosser was out, i.e., after August 1st. Of course, Kloppenburg had to win. Oh, well.

The backup plan is now in play. Kloppy requests a recount, which will take a long time.[*] As of 8/1, SCOWI becomes a 3-3 tie (at least in theory, but [Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson has counted her chickens very carefully). Ergo, a Madison Appeals court ruling will stand. Kloppy's just roadkill here. It's the vacancy on SCOWI that counts.

It was difficult to resist, on a lazy Sunday:

What Madison appeals court ruling?

shut up the tin foil crowd [Quoting Dad's mentor Esenberg.]

Hear that Dad?

Dad29:

What Madison appeals court ruling?

We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet. You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?

Your humble scribe:

We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet.

Right, but there is no appeals court "ruling." There was the [Department of Justice]'s District IV appeal, which the latter kicked upstairs, and the DoJ's ability to effectively represent its plaintiff secretary of state appears to be irretrievably broken. So that thing is dead in the water (maybe Cathy Stepp could fish it out). And there is [Secretary of Administration] Mike Huebsch's petition for a supervisory writ, also filed by the DoJ, a terribly unconvincing document, I'm sorry to tell you.

You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?

I don't expect them to, unless they want to rule the Open Meetings Law unconstitutional, at least insofar as it applies to the express prohibition on the sufficiency of the Fitzes' 1hr and 57m meeting notice (why wasn't Jeff Fitz in his office, by the way, when the witching hour was imminent? That's probably the biggest FUBAR in this entire escapade). But I would like to see the court declare the OML unconstitutional, for sheer entertainment at least. Imagine all of those restraintful, conservative jurisprudes "unmooring" themselves from the plain text and relying instead on Cromwell-era common law. What fun.

Incidentally, Daddy-O, you and your wing-right pals really need to stop criticizing Judge Sumi with your goofball ad hominem japes, as they embarrass nobody but you all (but of course you can keep it up for the pure entertainment value as well). What it tells people who have read the law (beyond Prof. Rick's "publication that is sent to schoolchildren," that is) is that you've got nothing *but* ad hominem fallacies. I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.

By the way, Dad, have you had a gander at Judge Sumi's record on appeal? Here, let me show you it.

Dad29, back for more:

I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.

I have, from Prof. Rick, who actually practiced law for quite some time — successfully.

As to Sumi: she gets the respect that she earns. No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.

Your humble scribe:

I have, from Prof. Rick ...

Well, good for you guys. You might find it interesting that Prof. Rick's watershed, controlling precedent, Goodland v. Zimmerman [Anno Domini 1943], barely makes an appearance in the Huebsch petition for a supervisory writ. Instead, the petition focuses primarily on La Follette v. Stitt.

You want to know why? Because the facts and law at issue in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald precisely describe that situation which Stitt repeatedly insists it does not cover. Go read Stitt (it's online), and see how quickly you lose count of the 'excepts' and the 'unlesses.' In other words, Stitt is unavailing, and JBVH knows it, as is Lynch v. Conta and as is MJS v. Wis. DoA, but we (and District IV) knew that already.

Grandes problemos, Daddy-O. You'll see (maybe). By the way this business is all constitutional law and statutory construction, which you don't need 20 years experience taking depositions to evaluate. And there's plenty of other pretty sharp cookies among the Marquette law faculty who haven't practiced a whole hell of a lot of law.

No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.

Except Judge Sumi hasn't done that. What do you think the briefing schedule is for? Besides, the convincing argument is sitting up right there among the black letter constitutional and statutory provisions. Have a look-see, Pops.

More Père le vingt-neuf:

But then, no one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO [temporary injunction] against a law which is not actually a law, either.

And some law:

Wis. Stat. § Dad(29): [N]o one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO against a law which is not actually a law, either.

Wis. Stat. § 19.97(2): [T]he district attorney may commence an action ... to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment ...

Why, it's unthinkable!

You're funny Dad.

Finis.

* It won't take a long time. Outside of MKE Co., it's a can of corn. Once the precincts get set up, the recounting will go very quickly.

It's not like they're counting one big bag of 1.5M ballots. They're counting several hundred much smaller quantities and tallying 'em up