Justice Hagedorn on Invalidating entire Presidential Election: "The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen."

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn is still right of center, voting most of the time with the majority of conservative Justices. But there's comfort in knowing that he isn't a predictable yes man to the GOP agenda pushed by the other Justices.

Yes, an actual swing vote on one of the most conservatively corrupt State Supreme Court's in the country. 

In the second Court decision rejecting Trump's request to throw out Dane and Milwaukee County voter ballots, Justice Hagedorn offered up the most memorable commentary to date. Nailed it:

"The relief being sought by the petitioners is the most dramatic invocation of judicial power I have ever seen," Hagedorn wrote. Hagedorn expressed alarm at the group's request to throw out nearly 3.3 million votes, calling it a "real stunner."

"We are invited to invalidate the entire presidential election in Wisconsin by declaring it ‘null’ — yes, the whole thing," wrote Hagedorn, who served as chief counsel to Republican Scott Walker when he was governor.

"This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread. The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable."

  

Why the courts and not the Legislature? In another decision, the current GOP "legal" scam was revealed once again, where elected Republicans are using the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) to get the courts to legislate from the bench many unpopular decisions they know are toxic. Although this case isn't a WILL case, the scheme is the same;

On Friday, in a case brought by Trump in federal court, U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig told an attorney for the president he was asking for "pretty remarkable declaratory relief" by asking to have the fate of Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes decided by the Legislature instead of voters.

He questioned whether the case should even be before him, noting Trump is arguing the Legislature has the power under the U.S. Constitution to decide who to send to the Electoral College.

"If that's the case, why are we doing anything in this court and if that's the appropriate arena for a remedy, why isn't the plaintiff going to the Legislature?" asked Ludwig, a Trump appointee who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in September. "I get the argument but I have a very, very hard time seeing how this is justiciable in the federal court," Ludwig said. 

He added that Trump's lawsuit was "really bizarre" because it asks to "remand" the case to the Legislature, noting that remanding a case typically means returning it to a lower court for reconsideration. "I think the term 'remand' might be inartful," Bock responded.