Local right-wing blogger Aaron Rodriguez, who can't spell JoAnne Kloppenburg either, tips the tin-foil haberdashery:*
In comes the next theory. Brian Schultz, a political scientist from Minnesota, theorizes that a lengthy recount could keep Prosser off the bench long enough so the Supreme Court rule on the law [sic] without him. Such a vote would result in a 3-3 split stopping the bill from going into effect. Kloppenburg's campaign denies that this is their intent, but why else call for a recount when the lead is insurmountable?Oy. Where to start. There's no such person as Brian Schultz, political scientist from Minnesota. It's David A. Schultz, law professor from Minnesota (Hamline University, to be exact). While Rodriguez's item is date stamped April 22, the Wisconsin Reporter story appeared on April 21, erroneously identifying a "Brian" Schultz.
All in a moment's work. You're welcome, media consuming universe.
Second, the recount will be complete by May 9 (it will be substantially complete long before then) which leaves Justice Prosser substantial time to deliberate. Thirdly, maybe the Kloppenburg campaign believes the lead is surmountable. In which case why not simply dismiss the liberals as delusional, which is what most rightblarghers do most of the time anyway; the problem is the quality of their factchecking is on roughly par with the example shown above.**
Or, y'know, it could be Kloppenburg is exercising her statutory rights.
Fourth, there is this (April 22, 7:23 a.m.).
Finally, and most importantly, there is nothing preventing Prosser and his three hard-right conservative allies from granting the secretary of administration's petition for supervisory writ and vacating Judge Sumi's injunction faster than you can gobble down a Culver's royale with cheese. But for all the recalcitrance and sneering on the right, it doesn't seem to be such an easy question, does it?
The District IV Court of Appeals in Madison, a more than capable reviewing crew, passed it over several weeks ago. What does that tell you? It tells me Judge Sumi has gotten it right, which this space has been arguing not since November 2010,** but it feels like it.
Of course this space came to that conclusion independently, so it's gratifying to be affirmed by a most conservative judge, one so conservative that even she herself was almost invariably affirmed by the most conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
That's like, conservative to the power of three.
Mr. Rodriguez might want to throw that tidbit into the calculus as well. Now can we put this silly conspiracy theory to bed, please?
Oh and also?
Let's call a spade a spade; voter fraud is usually a problem for Democrats ...Really, seriously, incredibly unfortunate cliché there, Bucky.
If you knew the first thing about Milwaukee politics. Again: Oy.
* Apparently this is what he gets up to when he's not suggesting that my good friend Chris Liebenthal was committing federal felonies. (That whole comments thread is worth reading. Lots of yuks there.)
** I'm sorry but the failure to check proper names is unforgivable, particularly in this case, where you're purporting to criticize a candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court who has been campaigning actively at least since November of 2010. Not only is it unmitigatable disheveledness, it tells a reader you have no idea what you're talking about, because you couldn't possibly have been following the election until about five minutes ago, when you decided to throw together a cheap, partisan hack-piece. Life is rough, but that's how it looks and that's exactly what any conscientious reporter or editor will tell you.
You don't misspell proper names. You just don't.