Wacky Republican State Supreme Court throws baffling Chaos into governing!

It's tough to be a Governor when you have two branches of government writing legislation, and one can't be vetoed...like the legislation written by the judicial branch's Supreme Court.

The forever gerrymandered GOP legislature is using the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty to pass legislation via lawsuits in the State Supreme Court. 

This time the rarely challenged power of the governors powerful veto pen, which has been allowed over and over again since 1935. In fact the governor holds "a 'quasi-legislative' role." The only changes came from referendums pass by the voters. Not anymore.

With 5 different mind-bending leaps of logic, the five conservative activist Justices, egged on by a WILL lawsuit, made the Governors future budget vetoes an impossible task that includes future lawsuits and second guessing that not surprisingly, leaves the GOP in complete control. 

Conservative Chaos, Again: Instead one of one clearly defined decision, and you can't make this stuff, each justice legislated this way;

But a majority could not agree on how to decide when to throw out vetoes.

1. Rebecca Bradley and Kelly argued vetoes could be used only to stop the adoption of a specific measure the Legislature had voted on.

2. Hagedorn and Ziegler contended a governor could use vetoes to slightly modify budget provisions, but could not selectively edit legislation to write new policies.

3. And Roggensack maintained partial vetoes were acceptable as long as they dealt with the same subject matter as what was written in the original legislation.

And Scott Walker's challenged vetoes? 

Also Friday, the Supreme Court threw out a narrower case that challenged vetoes by Walker from 2017. They determined that lawsuit had been filed too late and dismissed it.

Not a press release peep from our very silent Democrats. Real fighters.

Not-so-grounded-in-law State Supreme Court "legal" decision: "Constitution, Freedom, Liberty!"

When it came to repealing Gov. Evers safe-at-home orders, I was stunned by how similar the State Supreme Court's decision was to the unhinged rantings of my Trump cultist friend in Milwaukee.

The courts decision was like something you would hear at a bar filled with unmasked drunken geniuses spouting "patriotic" interpretations of the Constitution, liberty, and freedom.

Want to know how politically corrupt the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is right now? This AP article exposes what is incredibly obvious to most people. And this is what conservatives call law and order?

Republicans, having worked so hard to make bad policy "constitutional" through activist conservative Justices, weren't shy about shaping law to fit their right-wing outcome:

“Conservatives have been snookered,” former state Rep. Adam Jarchow tweeted within minutes of the court’s ruling Wednesday, in reference to Hagedorn. “We will never learn.” Jarchow, who tweeted that he went to a bar hours after the ruling, said Hagedorn was on “the wrong side of history.”

Justices attack fellow conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn: Apparently the conservative majority of Justices were seeking an overwhelming predetermined outcome. They never expected an honest criticism of their partisan bad decision, based on nothing, that put the entire states population at risk:

Hagedorn wrote: “During my campaign, I said that my job is to say what the law is, not what I think the law should be. I meant what I said” (Saying that the Legislature had no standing to bring the case seeking to overturn Evers’ “safer at home” order). “
“But just as true, the judiciary must never cast aside our laws or the constitution itself in the name of liberty. The rule of law, and therefore the true liberty of the people, is threatened no less by a tyrannical judiciary than by a tyrannical executive or legislature. Today’s decision may or may not be good policy, but it is not grounded in the law.”

Justice Daniel Kelly, who was booted off the court by voters for candidate Jill Karofsky, showed everyone why this bad Scott Walker appointee was never qualified:

“We swore to uphold the Wisconsin Constitution. He’s free to join in anytime he wishes.”

Justice Hagedorn must have hit that exposed sore spot of corruption on the court with this...

“We are a court of law. We are not here to do freewheeling constitutional theory. We are not here to step in and referee every intractable political stalemate. In striking down most of (the order), this court has strayed from its charge and turned this case into something quite different than the case brought to us.”

Supposed liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet summed it up this way:

“A majority of this court falls hook, line and sinker for the legislature's tactic to rewrite a duly enacted statute through litigation rather than legislation. This decision will undoubtedly go down as one of the most blatant examples of judicial activism in this court's history.”

Here's Upfront's Adrienne Pedersen's closing piece:



This hurts, really hurts: While the jury is still out on  Justice Hagedorn's "balls and strikes" attitude, I'm going out on a limb here by agreeing for once with opinion columnist Christian Schneider, even if he blocked me on twitter. This is a thing of beauty:

Sen. Fitzgerald stands behind fringe "Branch Covidian" protests in hopes to permanently repeal Governors Emergency Powers!!!

For Republicans, it really is like flicking a light switch, just the opposite of what they say they're not doing...

CapTimes: Sarah Mattes, the communications supervisor for Public Health Madison & Dane County said, “We understand that people are frustrated, but during a pandemic, a mass gathering is a dangerous way to express frustrations.” 

Wisconsin Republican leadership Sen. Scott Fitzgerald and Rep. Robin Vos never get around to mentioning the disease itself, and certainly, have no plans to help increase testing or contact tracing...just get-back-to-work. Why? Because they don't solve problems, and because it requires actual "work" to come up with a plan.

Check out WMC's proposed plan endorsed by Republican Sen. Chris Kopenga that didn't contain one suggestion to ramp up testing and contact tracing for COVID-19, like it doesn't exist, but it does seek "health care capacity" after the fact just in case things don't work out.

The "emergency rule" making powers of the governor appear to include an automatic 150 day period (An emergency rule remains in effect only for a period of 150 days), not just the 60 days that Sen. Scott Fitzgerald is whining about. And Evers could extend the rule after 150 days in 60-day increments. Still...

Vos said he and Fitzgerald resisted calls to repeal the governor's 60-day public health emergency, which expires on May 12.

Which is BS bluster, because they're now trying to take the emergency rule away from the governor completely in their lawsuit before the State Supreme Court.

From Upfront, Fitzgerald never mentions controlling COVID-19 and is clearly just making it up as he goes along with insipid and petty excuses that are almost laughable, like;

1. Oddly assumed 60 days is enough time for a pandemic;

2. The "separate set of statutes?" IS the Governors emergency rulemaking power; 

3. Whines the Sec. of Health could do anything she wants to do...at Evers direction...huh?;

4. Whether the 60 days rule in the statute is even constitutional;

5. No plan from GOP, "nothing in concrete yet;"

6. Evers adopted Trump standard that was just "dreamed up" by Evers to beat back criticism;

7. "The governor can't even explain..." huh, like Trump can?;

8. Pandemic elections resulting infections dreamed up and not verified because they don't have a tracing program;

9. "Until they have a tracing program in place, it's pretty hard for me to believe anything that has been used to link the two right now."

Interpreting statute is above my paygrade, but I'm also pretty sure once Evers works out a plan with the legislature, nothing he wants to do based on science and medical experts will happen without approval from our power-grabbing Republican authoritarian deniers. Note: Robin Vos said "...not necessarily to stop the response to the pandemic..." but that apparently is the hope: 

"The reason we're filing the lawsuit is not necessarily to stop the response to the pandemic ... it just says like every other proposal in a democracy, the legislative branch negotiates with the executive branch and the best ideas are brought forward."

Vos in Charge? Hope not: Thanks to Rep. Robin Vos, Republicans finally got rid of medical lawsuits completely, for at least a few months...not kidding:

A FOX6 investigation revealed an Assembly amendment broadened civil liability immunity for health care providers in Wisconsin. 

The bill originally said a health care provider would be immune from civil liability for "actions or omissions taken in providing services to address or in response to a 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak [emphasis added] ... in order for the health provider to qualify for immunity, the action must occur, in part, while "providing services during the state of emergency declared under s. 323.10 on March 12, 2020, by executive order 72, relating to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic [emphasis added] and for 60 days following the date that the state of emergency terminates."

Vos introduced an amendment of what he described as"technical corrections," eliminating the "2019 novel coronavirus" qualifier multiple times.

The end result was a bill that went to the Senate, saying a health care provider is immune from civil liability for death or injury or for "actions or omissions" if the provider, in part, is "providing services during the state of emergency declared under s. 323.10 on March 12, 2020, by executive order 72, or the 60 days following the date that the state of emergency terminates."

Emergency Powers slowing COVID-19 pandemic and saving lives, too much for State corporate Republican sellouts!!!

It appears Trump Republicans Rep. Robin Vos and Sen. Scott Fitzgerald's scheme to put off confirming Gov. Evers appointments - a transparent move to silence and keep them in line - will work it's magic again. And their unquestioning voters won't even know this is happening.

Republicans want to repeal the stay-at-home order and usurp the health departments' ability to save lives.

Republican leaders took Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to court to stop his administration from keeping businesses and schools closed through May in an effort to slow the spread of a deadly virus. The two sides battle over whether shutting down the state to save lives is worth the devastating economic toll.

If you've got a problem with saving lives or preventing economic damage.

This will be one final test for the conservative activist State Supreme Court and any claim to legitimacy. 

Power Grab at the Cost of Lives Continues: As both the headline and "Breaking News" headline tell the story:

Officials have identified seven people who appear to have contracted COVID-19 through activities related to the April 7 election, Milwaukee Health Commissioner Jeanette Kowalik said Monday. Six of the cases are in voters and one is a poll worker.

The Evers administration is apparently only acting "under the color of State law" now, a kind of fake executive power. Yes, the stench of arrogance wafts over the Capitol. 

The GOP leaders are seeking to take away the state health secretary's ability to make unilateral decisions during public health emergencies and instead require her to gain their approval before taking action. "Purporting to act under color of State law, an unelected, unconfirmed cabinet secretary has laid claim to a suite of czar-like powers — unlimited in scope and indefinite in duration — over the people of Wisconsin," the complaint reads. If they're successful, businesses and schools could likely re-open if owners and administrators wanted to do so.

Elections don't matter, not for Democrats, who apparently don't get to speak for the people who elected them. It's the ruling minority of a handful of mob-like dumb asses protesting life-saving orders that seems to matters during a PANDEMIC:

Evers' orders "denied the people a voice through this unprecedented administrative overreach."

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin summed up the power grab:

"Let's be clear about one thing. If Republicans are successful, people will die," the party said in a tweet.

The James Bond-like pair of power-mongering villains couldn't have more envious and whiny since losing the governorship and every other statewide office. You'll notice no reference to COVID-19 anywhere in the tantrum. They decreed...:

"Just as troubling, the Secretary asserts that her go-it-alone shutdown authority has no expiration date — making it greater than even the Governor’s emergency powers," the complaint says. "... by the time the Secretary sees fit to lift her decree (be it in five weeks or eight months), many Wisconsinites will have lost their jobs, and many companies will have gone under, to say nothing of the Order’s countless other downstream societal effects. Our State will be in shambles."

"Dictator" Evers delays Election Day to June 9th, Vos/Fitzgerald cry like babies to the State Supreme Court...and get their way!!!

UPDATE: VOX

Wisconsin’s plan to hold an election in the middle of a pandemic is back on! On a party-line vote, however, the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court struck down Evers’s order, meaning that the state is now on track to hold its election as originally scheduled ... the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a second blow to the Democratic governor by tightening limits on which absentee ballots can be counted. Under that 5-4 order, voters will have to mail back their absentee ballots by Tuesday, go to the polls that day or give up their opportunity to vote.

Writing for the court's liberals in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded thousands would be "left quite literally without a vote" because their absentee ballots wouldn't arrive at their homes until after election day — too late to cast them. "If a voter already in line by the poll’s closing time can still vote, why should Wisconsin’s absentee voters, already in line to receive ballots, be denied the franchise?" she wrote.

WOW, this is a big problem...guess the US Supreme Court didn't do their homework. Will Vos/Fitzgerald throw a hissy fit over this? Yea, right:

Voter Suppression by Coronavirus Pandemic, exploiting tragedy?: Activist Court legislating from the bench? Sure. This was always a sure thing. Anything to suppress votes to maintain Scott Walker's appointed Justice:

As law professor and election law expert Rick Hasen recently noted, “only 38% of voters who had requested an absentee ballot in heavily Democratic Milwaukee County had returned one, compared with over 56% of absentee voters in nearby Republican-leaning Waukesha County.”

The Democratic reaction? Shoot me now..."disappointed?"

And the Vos/Fitzgerald response, hey, they wanted you to vote absentee but thems-the-brakes:

Fitzgerald and Vos said after the court's ruling, “The safety and health of our citizens have always been our highest concern; that’s why we advocated for everyone to vote absentee."

Will those who voted in person and a week later found positive with the COVID-19 virus blame Republicans, and will that be provable  in a lawsuit? Also, will Republican voters think this was okay? I know, that's expecting. Pandemic's, public beheadings...who knows.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Our better angels won this one...

Perhaps Evers had one other choice...:

But just a few days ago, Republican leaders Robin Vos and Scott Fitzgerald said voting during a pandemic, and risking your health, was no different than ordering takeout:

Today Vos/Fitzgerald will utilize their conservative activist State Supreme Court to force people into large gatherings at the now dramatically reduced number of polling places. What could go wrong:

At the same time, Trump cultists are taking a break from bowing to their Orange God to attack Gov. Evers for his election day delay, during a pandemic that's killing people, calling him a dictator. This is the best most ridiculous comment:

This morning, NPR told the rest of the nation just how brutal Republican are here, in incredible detail by WPR reporter Laurel White:



I just had to throw this in. Republicans have an odd sense of humor...?:

When it comes to golf courses, the lawmakers asked that Evers allow them to reopen if they follow certain guidelines, including:

• Clubhouses and dining remain closed. 
• Only four golfers per hole.
• Only one golfer per golf cart.
• Standard social distancing is practiced.

The lawmakers also developed additional guidelines that could be considered. Those include:

• Pro shops remain closed.
• Payments are made online or over the phone.
• Practice facilities remain closed.
• Flagsticks removed or touchless accommodation made.
• Objects on course that could be touched (ball washers, rakes, water coolers, benches, etc.) removed
• Tee times no less than 12 minutes apart.
• The placement of signs outside the pro shop and clubhouse outlining the social distancing guidelines under the stay-at-home order.

Walker's Conservative State Supreme Court doing what he planned, ignores text of Constitution to neutralize Democratic Governor and AG.

My conservative Trump cultist and friend in Milwaukee is all smiles after the activist conservative State Supreme Court allowed Republicans to restrict the incoming power of the Democratic governor and AG.

These "strict constructionist" Justices, who promised to enforce the language of out state constitution in their campaigns, parsed and twisted themselves into pretzels justifying their predetermined judicial outcome.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld lame-duck laws Friday that limit the power of the state's new Democratic governor ... In Friday's 4-3 decision, conservatives on the state's high court found lawmakers were allowed to bring themselves into session in December. "The Wisconsin Constitution mandates that the Legislature meet 'at such time as shall be provided by law.' The Legislature did so," Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority.

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Rebecca Dallet contended the Legislature's two-year session "ceased to exist" in March 2018, when it held its last planned meeting. Leaders had "no authority" to bring lawmakers back in December because no state law gave them that power, she wrote. "The Legislature violated the plain constitutional text, and this court must act as a check," she wrote.

Governor Evers called the decision predictable and disappointing. “It is based on a desired political outcome, not the plain meaning and text of the constitution,” his statement said. "Our framers knew that no good comes from lawmakers rushing laws through at the last minute without public scrutiny. The lame-duck session proves the framers were right. This was an attack on the will of the people, our democracy, and our system of government.”

The groups argued such sessions aren't allowed because the state constitution says lawmakers can meet only when called into a special session by the governor or as provided by law. Lawmakers wrote a work schedule that said they had the power to hold extraordinary sessions whenever they wanted. That was enough to comply with the constitutional provisions on when the Legislature can meet, the majority concluded.

It will be interesting to see just how far the right wing court will go with this more important and most basic question. A decision that could or should put aside today ruling:

The state Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months in a lawsuit brought by unions that argues the laws violate the state constitution's separation-of-powers doctrine, which delineates what powers belong to each branch of government.

Strict Constructionist Conservative Activist Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices ignore Constitution? Yup!

This was easy, at least for the radical left wing justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who seem focused on...the actual "constructionist" written language of the State Constitution. Go figure...:

Two of the liberal-backed justices on the court, Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet, welcomed the plaintiffs’ argument the Legislature did not convene legally because no law existed giving them such authority. Dallet contended the only law that governs when the Legislature may meet refers to regular sessions, not extraordinary sessions. “Where is the law that tells us you can call this extraordinary session?” Dallet said. “And if you wanted such a law, why can’t the Legislature pass one?”

The state constitution says lawmakers can meet only when called into a special session by the governor or as "provided by law." State law does not explicitly describe extraordinary sessions.

Not a law. Pretty simple.

Still, Republicans seem to think legislative "scheduling," or being in a "non-stop meeting," or "they can hold meetings at anytime," or "have the power to establish a schedule that is 'broad and amorphous' if they want," is just like having a law:

Legislators are allowed to hold extraordinary sessions ... they can hold meetings at any time ... lawmakers effectively were in a nonstop meeting for two years, with the lame-duck session an extension of a meeting that began in January 2017.

Strict Constructionist Activist Conservative Justice Exposed, and now confused? Constructionist's always argue they aren't political. So why don't supposed liberal judges claimed they're strict constructionists? Put another way, our conservative activist Justices, who wouldn't think twice about overturning decades of settled law, are now whining that after so many years it would seem crazy to declare extraordinary sessions unconstitutional...you can't make this stuff up:

As League of Women Voters attorney Jeffrey Mandell stood to begin his arguments in the case, he was cut off immediately by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. "You are asking this court to rule that the Wisconsin Legislature has been acting unconstitutionally for over four decades," Bradley told Mandell. "How can that be? Don't you find it extraordinary that nobody has raised this issue before this court in over four decades?"

Real strict constructionist thinking there huh? Also, I found it extraordinary and not so "constructionist" to overturn a century of Second Amendment law and giving corporations First Amendment speech and religious rights, but that's me.

How bad was it? Walker and Schimel's grab at "breathtaking power" stopped by stacked conservative State Supreme Court!!!

State Superintendent and gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers was an election year target of Scott Walker's, and Walker almost got away with it. 

The one perfect example of just how extreme our mild-mannered, super relaxed, sleepy-eyed governor Scott Walker really is reads like something out of a third world country.

Seriously, this is what's possible under an arrogant unapologetic one-party Republican regime. Talk about stacking the deck:

JS: Walker had tried to block Evers from picking his own lawyer to defend him in a lawsuit filed by a conservative law firm challenging Evers' authority to write his own education policies. And Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel had assigned Department of Justice lawyers who disagreed with Evers' stance in the case. But the conservative-controlled court said Evers could not be required to be represented by DOJ and that Walker is not a party to the case.

Having loaded the supreme court with conservative activist justices sympathetic to Walker's far right-wing agenda, Walker's chest pounding over partisan wins became almost predictable. Only obvious cases of desperate overreach had any chance of failure, and that finally happened. The court was astonishingly blunt:

The court said accepting DOJ's argument "would foist upon Evers and DPI an attorney they do not want (and have discharged), taking a position with which they do not agree," prompting ethical implications for DOJ attorneys and give Schimel "breathtaking power."

"It would potentially make the attorney general a gatekeeper for legal positions taken by constitutional officers, such as the governor or justices of this court sued in their official capacity," the court wrote. "DOJ's position would not allow a constitutional officer to take a litigation position contrary to the position of the attorney general. We decline to adopt this view."

Unethical legal conflicts and authoritarian control by the AG is not a problem for the 3 super conservative activists, who don't see minor matters like these as roadblocks, suggesting Evers should just go to majority Republicans in the legislature and get the law changed. Amazing?: 

Justices Rebecca Bradley, Michael Gableman and Daniel Kelly disagreed with the court's decision. In their dissent, Bradley said no Wisconsin law gives Evers the power to hire or fire a DOJ attorney.

"The constitution creates the role of a state Superintendent and gives the superintendent authority to supervise public instruction. That is all the constitution confers upon the superintendent," Bradley wrote. She said if Evers does not like state laws on how state agencies are represented, "he should take it up with the Legislature to amend them."

Dog-whistles Gone, NRA Justice Candidate Screnock said of Rebecca Dallet: "What she's calling values is a liberal activist agenda." Wow!

The first candidate debate for the Supreme Court came and went without a single headline declaring candidate Judge Michael Screnock the wildly conservative activist we thought he was, all brought to us by the deep campaign pockets of the NRA and Wisconsin Manufacturing and Commerce lobbyists. 

Why reporters didn't jump all over the comment featured below is stunning. No, seriously, you won't believe it.

Screnock first suggested he and his big monied conservative financiers had a lock on "Wisconsin values" like "honesty, integrity, hard work, follow the golden rule....those are values," because liberal Wisconsinites don't also have those same values? If that wasn't bad enough, Screnock dived headfirst into Trumpian cesspool:

Screnock: "What she (Dallet) is calling values, is a liberal activist agenda. She's talked about workers rights..."

Ouch? Workers in Amerca have rights? Who wants that? Guess the corporate takeover of our courts is nearly complete:

Conservative Activist State Supreme Court Justices Cut Taxes for Wealth Property Owners, calling Assessor Inspections an "unreasonable search and seizure."

These two odd stories came together for me today, and amazingly, could have huge implications.

For some reason, the activist conservative majority on our State Supreme Court now considers the ability of local governments to assess property taxes an...invasion of privacy? Believe it or not, their decision on Friday not only cheats communities owed taxes, but certainly could be applied in other possible state inspections...maybe?

A Wisconsin law that requires homeowners to let assessors inside as a condition for challenging their property taxes is unconstitutional as applied to a pair of Racine County property owners, the state Supreme Court ruled last week ... in a 5-2 decision, visits amount to unreasonable searches and that assessors need to get warrants if they can’t obtain the homeowners’ consent.

What the...it's not a crime scene right, so what does paying your taxes on the value of a property you own have to do with getting a court ordered search warrant now? And how could it be an "unreasonable search?"

The ruling involves Vincent Milewski and Morganne MacDonald, who own a home in the town of Dover in Racine County ... they tried to challenge their 2013 property tax assessment in front of a town review board. The board refused to hear the challenge because Milewski and MacDonald wouldn’t let an assessor inside their home. Under state law, people who refuse an assessor’s request to view their property can’t contest the assessment to local review boards.

That's the common sense part of this. And two courts agreed...but not our activist conservative court Justices. Try and wrap your head around this lunacy, and the courts bizarre reach to protect willful deception:

The state Supreme Court reversed that ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Dan Kelly said Milewski and MacDonald were faced with a difficult decision: relinquish their constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches so they could challenge the assessment or exercise their rights and forfeit their ability to contest the assessment. Kelly said an assessors’ visit without consent is a search as defined in the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures ... it can’t be read to require a viewing that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The town failed to show how assessing taxes is such a special need that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply, which means assessors must obtain search warrants to enter without consent, he wrote. Assessors can use other means to gather information about the property, he said. 

This is insane...and why can't this be applied to other local inspections, building codes or whatever the hell else?  

It didn't help that AP reporter Todd Richmond chimed in with his own personal jab. Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, the only two liberal-leaning justices, dissented. Abrahamson wrote in a joint dissent with Bradley that such choices are common in the law and are seen as constitutionally valid. She also complained the majority opinion is overly complex and intricate — even though her dissent goes on for 47 pages compared with Kelly’s 53 pages — and doesn’t say what should happen next.

Billionaires New Weapon to Avoid Taxation. Witness the First Judicial Tax Cut: At the same time, I just discovered a June 1 story in Urban Milwaukee by Bruce Murphy about billionaire Diane "turn the state red" Hendricks, who was once filmed meeting with Scott Walker and getting him to admit his plan was to divide and conquer labor in the state. Too bad she didn't wait a little longer: 

Small 1600 Sq Ft home? 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a “Watchdog” report today jumping on Urban Milwaukee’s stories showing the huge home of billionaire Diane Hendricks was under-assessed and a follow-up story we did with the Town of Rock lawyers admitting mistakes were made, that Hendricks had refused entry to an assessor and the assessment would now be revisited. Considering that Hendricks is the second-richest self-made woman in America, and that “she’s been paying a fraction of the property taxes that would typically be associated with a sprawling mansion such as hers,” as the JS story notes.

The story leads off like a think piece posing the question of how an assessment should be handled when a taxpayer doesn’t allow an assessor to view the home, with some reporting on two residents of the Town of Dover, Vince Milewski and his wife, Morganne MacDonald, who live 60 miles away from Hendricks and saw their assessment increase after they barred the assessor ... Hendricks’ huge mansion was under-assessed as a 1,663-square-foot home and the assessor hadn’t been allowed to visit the property. But the Journal Sentinel was able to get Accurate Appraisal ... to reveal they weren’t aware that Hendricks had built a newer, 8,500-square-foot home and had never seen the building permits taken out when the home was built.

Now you can see why the State Supreme Courts decision was so profoundly big. It could be considered a major "judicial branch tax cut for the wealthy." That's called legislating from the bench.

The JS makes clear that the reconsideration of the assessment that Town of Rock lawyers promised Urban Milwaukee has now taken place. Addie Ebert, Accurate Appraisal’s assessor for the town, told the newspaper that Hendricks "gave them a limited tour of the compound. They rode around the property in a utility vehicle, but at no time were they brought to the mansion. “However, she said, they could see the house was not the two-bedroom ranch Accurate had recorded in its files.”

“Some time after the tour, Ebert said she contacted Hendricks’ representative again and asked for access to the mansion. She was told it wouldn’t happen for security reasons. “They did eventually supply us with the data (on the home)’ Ebert said.” As a result the home’s assessment nearly tripled, going from $445,700 last year to $1,205,500 this year, the paper reported. Hendricks annual property tax bill (went up) by $12,204. Depending on when the new home was finished — in 2011 or 2012 — she may have underpaid by as much as $55,000 or more.