Say over and over, Dane County Judges are Liberal Activists..

Make no mistake, the constant drumbeat that Dane County judges are "liberal," is quietly sinking in to our subconsciousness.

And if that claim were true, then conversely, most of our other state judges would be conservative...and that would be...acceptable? My head explodes every time I hear this claim, because it assumes conservative judges represent the law, the way it was meant to be interpreted and administered.

I've pointed out over and over...and over again, how the GOP presidential candidates have promised to appoint conservative judges and justices, like it was something to brag about, something normal. They're not trying to hide it anymore. The media never takes issue with these declarations of war on our judicial branch. Never.

When a Dane County judge totally repealed the states new voter ID law, Republican lawmakers were quick to admit that by immediately sending an appeal to the openly conservative activist State Supreme Court, they can overturn the decision. They're not even pretending there's a possibility that the majority conservative justices would rule any other way.

And the Democrats? They still have not formed a message, a frame, around this slide into a ruthless authoritarian one party state takeover. They're still begging Republicans to at least listen to their ideas. Quaint.  



Republican Rep. Jeff Stone signals former partisan legislator and now conservative Justice David Prosser to gather his majority and "win" another one for the party.

Here's more on Judge Niess' decision:

Voting Protected by Wisconsin Constitution: Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that all state residents who are U.S. citizens and over age 18 may vote, and Section 2, according to the decision, "authorizes the government to exclude from voting those otherwise-eligible electors (1) who have been convicted of a felony and whose civil rights have not been restored, or (2) those adjudged by a court to be incompetent or partially incompetent, unless the judgment contains certain specifications."

According to Judge Niess, Section 1 and 2 provide the exclusive basis for creating laws that implement the constitutional requirements for voting. "The government may not disqualify an elector who possesses those qualifications on the grounds that the voter does not satisfy additional statutorily created qualifications not contained in Article III, such as a photo ID," he wrote. "By enacting Act 23’s photo ID requirements as a precondition to voting, the legislature and governor have exceeded their constitutional authority."

Judge Niess wrote, "there is no harm in pausing to reflect on the insurmountable burdens facing many of our fellow constitutionally qualified electors should Act 23 hold sway. Mostly they would consist of those struggling souls who, unlike the vast majority of Wisconsin voters, for whatever reason will lack the financial, physical, mental, or emotional resources to comply with Act 23, but are otherwise constitutionally entitled to vote."

While noting that "where it exists, voter fraud corrupts elections and undermines our form of government," Niess stated that "voter fraud is no more poisonous to our democracy than voter suppression. Indeed, they are two heads on the same monster. Where does the Wisconsin Constitution say that the government we, the people, created can simply cast aside the inherent suffrage rights of any qualified elector on the wish and promise – even the guarantee – that doing so serves to prevent some unqualified individuals from voting? It doesn’t. In fact, it unequivocally says the opposite. The right to vote belongs to all Wisconsin citizens who are qualified electors, not just the fortunate majority for whom Act 23 poses little obstacle at the polls."