Worst Most Corrupt Conservative Activist Supreme Court Shreds Elected Office, blames "administration leviathan" and "Bureaucratic Overlords!"

It took awhile, but Republicans stuck with their plan to corrupt the judicial branch, and now they have what they needed; open and dishonest activist judges/justices legislating from the bench! This last week, Republicans were allowed to limit the governor's and AG's power:

"Constitutional original-ism?" Well, don't forget about what our state constitutional founding fathers intended too, which is now being channeled by our sitting Republican psychic mediums...I mean justices.

Good-bye Superintendent of Public Instruction: Republicans have now secured constitutionally the dismantling of public education in the future, or least greatly hold back reform and progress for years, if not decades. This was a big win for them, and an immeasurable loss for education, similar to what Republicans did to the supreme court:

JS: The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed itself Tuesday by ruling the state schools chief cannot set education policy without permission from the governor, a blow to Democrats who have controlled the state's education agency for decades.

The ruling makes successful an eight-year effort by Republicans ... Tuesday's decision overturns the court's own ruling just three years ago when justices said in Coyne v. Walker that Evers could write rules and regulations related to education policy on his own — without permission from then-Gov. Scott Walker and the Legislature — because the state constitution provides him with the power to do so.

Evers, in a statement, said "The facts didn't change in the last three years and neither did the meaning of the constitution. Only the composition of the court did.”

Surprise, Republicans waited for Majority Activist Justices to pull off Scheme: Conservative lawsuit mill WILL admitted it:

AP: In her dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley noted the new lawsuit was filed after two members of the court that had previously upheld the state superintendent's authority — justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser — were no longer on the court.

"And why are we here again? At oral argument, counsel for the petitioners was asked, 'you wouldn't be here asking a supreme court of the state of Wisconsin to overturn a decision that it just made two years ago if it were the same court, would you?' In response, counsel acknowledged, 'any lawyer has to make strategic decisions about what is likely to be successful.' Indeed," Bradley wrote. "Although nothing in our Constitution has changed since Coyne was decided, what has changed is the membership of the court."

Surprise, Chief Justice twists previous decision into Convoluted Word Salad Nonsense: Not kidding, really:

Chief Justice Pat Roggensack wrote in the majority opinion ... a footnote justifying how the court could reverse itself. She wrote the 2016 opinion was fractured with two concurrences and failed to establish a “common legal rationale.” As result there was no rationale to analyze, opening the door for another look at the issues.

Huh? Roggensack just obliterated precedent/stare decisis. 

Stare decisis is a doctrine, or an instruction, used in all court cases and with all legal issues. Stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. These past decisions are known as precedent.

Republican Justice Bradley opinion polluted with Political Trash Talk: Bradley's divisive right-wing writings in the past as a student, as it turns out, weren't so irrelevant after all. I guess she forgot the state Superintendent is an elected office determined by voters, or as Bradley puts it, the "supreme power held by the people." Bradley seems to have an issue with our overly complicated constitutionally created "administrative leviathan" known as state government. 

Justice Rebecca Bradley in a separate concurring opinion criticized what she called "the concentration of power within an administrative leviathan."

"The philosophical roots of rule by bureaucratic overlords are antithetical to the Founders' vision of our constitutional Republic, in which supreme power is held by the people through their elected representatives, and 'the creation of rules of private conduct' is 'an irregular and infrequent occurrence,'" she wrote.