Welcome to The State Republican Supreme Court!

The news headlines should really read, "This is getting ridiculous!!!"

I keep thinking back on a time when Republicans always accused Democrats of using the courts to pass their left-wing agenda. Well, as it turns out, it was another serious case of "projection." 

It's all here; "Conservative Activist Justices" "Legislating from the Bench": Another Walker legacy, the gerrymandered Republicans legislature and their legal attack dogs at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are now openly admitting the State Supreme Court is conservative and theirs to command. Seriously, they couldn't wait a few days?:

WILL’s lawsuit was filed on the last day that former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson served on the court. When Hagedorn takes Abrahamson’s place on Thursday, the Court will have a 5-2 conservative majority.

...and...

Republicans filed their lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court just hours after conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn was sworn into office.

...and who could forget how it all started...

On limiting Gov. Evers veto power, it will be interesting to see how the State Republican Supreme Court will sell their eventual limit on vetos and over 80 years of precedent because you know they will:

Esenberg said he may also pursue having the court reverse a 1935 Supreme Court decision to further curtail the veto powers of the governor. Those who have challenged past vetoes have typically lost. In 1988, for instance, the high court ruled the governor held a "quasi-legislative" role and was allowed to strike out words, digits and even individual letters from budgets to string together new sentences.

Republican Voters love it: Even when it's obvious, GOP voters will never want to give up power. Like the originalist's con "interpreting" the legal text which could mean anything; or the lame-duck session stripping the governor and attorney generals of their power...: 

Justice Rebecca Dallet contended ... no state law gave them that power ... 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 (not law) ... that was enough to comply with the constitutional provisions the majority concluded.

Ultra-Gerrymandering up Next: Would Republicans really try to bypass the governor when it's time to redraw districts? Seriously?

“I’ve heard about it,” Rick Esenberg, executive director of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), said of the plan. “Whether we would have anything to do with it, I can’t say.”

But, he added, “I understand the argument. The argument is the constitution reserves [redistricting] to the state legislature, and it should be taken literally; the state legislature should do it. It would require that precedent be overruled,” Esenberg acknowledged. But, he added, “I don’t think it’s a frivolous argument.”

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.