Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1634, 21 Mar 19

Dane County Judge Blocks Legislation

If there is anything that should get conservatives off of their collective asses to vote for Hagedorn for Supreme Court, one would hope this would be it.

MADISON – A Dane County judge on Thursday blocked a series of laws that limited the powers of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Within hours, Evers and Kaul used the decision to try to get Wisconsin out of a multistate lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act that their Republican predecessors joined. Until the judge’s ruling, Republican lawmakers were able to prevent them from doing that.

This ruling will be overturned… eventually. If the Appeals Court doesn’t do it, the Supreme Court will. We saw this exact pattern over and over again after Walker assumed office. Law passes. Liberals sue. Dane County judge rules against law. Appeals Court or Supreme Court overturns Dane County Judge.

That is, of course, assuming that the activist liberal judges don’t take over the Supreme Court. If that happens, then you will see a series of lawsuits where concealed carry, right to work, etc. are all thrown out by an activist Supreme Court. And if you think that Attorney General Josh Kaul will defend Wisconsin’s laws, think again. Look at what he just did. Liberals are perfectly happy ruling by judicial fiat.

Vote for Hagedorn.


1634, 21 March 2019


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    What a piece of liberal junk this judge is.

    Awful. Just awful.

    Liberals are a mental illness.

  2. jjf

    Shorter™ Robinson:  “Vote for Hagedorn for our kind of judicial fiat.”

  3. dad29

    Revoking concealed-carry might be a lot more challenging than some hack-in-black from Dane County thinks it is.

  4. Kevin Scheunemann


    Of course vote for Hagedorn!

    Voting the other way let’s the anti-Christian bigots/liberal bullies win.

  5. Le Roi du Nord

    You condemn a well respected judge, yet have been silent on the slaughter in NZ, trumps pathetic attacks on McCain, a real American hero.

    Awful, just awful.

  6. Kevin Scheunemann


    You are such a liar!

    I have been openly denouncing the liberal shooter of Muslims in New Zealand on local progressive page!

    I have also denounced the 30 Christians murdered in Philippines in church by Muslims, which hateful bigoted, liberal press in America refuses to cover.

    I also denounced the slaughter of hundreds of Christians by evil Muslims in Nigeria last 3 weeks.

    Where have you been?

    Complaining that I dare talk about Creation?

  7. Le Roi du Nord

    Been right here.

  8. Mar

    “You condemn a well respected judge, yet have been silent on the slaughter in NZ, trumps pathetic attacks on McCain, a real American hero.

    Awful, just awful.”
    Meanwhile you don’t mention anything about slaughtering 200 Christians. Pathetic.

  9. Pat

    Kevin said, “I have been openly denouncing the liberal shooter of Muslims in New Zealand on local progressive page!”

    What local progressive page would that be?

  10. dad29

    a well respected judge

    What?  Clarence Thomas moved to Madistan-on-the-Dnieper?

  11. Kevin Scheunemann

    Slaughtering of Christians is a non-event in liberal lexicon/liberal media.

  12. Recess Supervisor

    JJF highlights the real crux of this case, which is a point I’ve made in my own discussions about this matter elsewhere. At first glance it’s a bit foreign, since each side is making what is customarily assumed to be the other’s argument.

    But setting aside what one’s preferences might be for a policy outcome, this is at its essence a matter of judicial philosophy and how founding documents should be interpreted.

    The liberals, in this case, are making a strong textualist argument against the use of an extraordinary session. Namely, that such authority is not granted to the legislature anywhere in the state’s constitution, nor in state law.

    It is, effectively, an authority that the legislature has given to itself, relying on sort of contextualist view of these documents. That the power to call itself into session outside the boundaries of regular session is a power that the legislature *should* have based on certain language elsewhere.

    The argument itself was interesting. First, the issue that Misha Tseytlin, for a guy making a huge hourly fee representing Vos et al, didn’t seem to have a very good understanding of legislative procedure. He put forward an argument about annulment of previous legislation, but in doing so didn’t seem to understand how Wisconsin’s constitution is actually amended. He then stepped in it by asserting that somehow the legislature, since it no longer dissolves itself at the end of session, is somehow *perpetually* in session.

    Which, on the one hand, is completely silly. There’d be no need for an extraordinary designation then.

    But secondly (and even better), because state law precludes lobbyists from donating to legislators while the legislature is in session. And yet, I’m pretty sure every member of JCLO has taken contributions from lobbyists. Those two things can’t be concurrently true. If the legislature is always in session, every lobbyist contribution ever accepted by a legislator is a violation of state law.

    In any case, it was really a hot mess of an argument that was mostly reminiscent of the Chicken Little, “too big to fail” arguments we saw banks make during the recession. Criminals running loose in the streets, district attorneys and sheriffs out of work because their terms weren’t actually lengthened, etc. And Niess, correctly, laughed those out of the room at the end of his opinion. (More silly contextualism from the defendants. I guess what matters isn’t whether the power is authorized in the constitution, but what would happen if we acknowledged it wasn’t?)

    Assuming this ends up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it’s going to be interesting to see what approach the court takes. Judges tend to value judicial philosophy over political outcomes, but in this case, adhering to one’s judicial philosophy would require most members of the court to support a political outcome they might not prefer. This could definitely end up being a curious bedfellows type of ruling, a split where there are conservative and liberal members of the court on each side. The argument should make lots of them super uncomfortable, which is always fun.

    Best of all, what it really does is reveal both sides as colossal hypocrites who are happy to gloss over the contradictions with their preferred judicial approach to get the political outcome they want. It’s stuff like this that makes me glad I haven’t lived in your state in nearly 15 years. Life is much, much better that way.

    How’s Foxconn doing, BTW? Are there any jobs left in Wisconsin that taxpayers aren’t directly subsidizing? :-)

  13. Pat


    A Facebook page with 13 members. What other pages do you troll?

  14. Merlin

    Judicial philosophy predicated on political outcome is a genie that left the bottle long decades ago. It necessarily follows that competition for political control of a weaponized judiciary would be inevitable. That genie is never going back in the bottle.


  15. Kevin Scheunemann


    I don’t troll.   I just like to have debate.

    Keeps me sharp on the latest leftist attack tactics.

  16. Pat

    “I have been openly denouncing the liberal shooter of Muslims in New Zealand on local progressive page!”

    Of 13 individuals. Yup, shouting it from the rafters for all to hear.

  17. Kevin Scheunemann


    Where would you like me to shout it?

    This liberal racist was an awful, evil guy.  He should be executed.

    So should the Muslims shooting Christians in Phillipines, and Nigeria.

    Where is your denouncement?

    Have not seen boo from you, or the sick liberal media, about the carnage of Christians by Muslims in last 3 weeks.


  18. Pat

    Kevin asked, “Where is your denouncement?”

    I was at walking my dog and told him how pissed I was. The overall effect it had was probably the same as your mini tirade to a couple people on a low viewed Facebook page.

  19. Paul

    Child raper Le Roi du Nord is the last person to be calling anyone out.

  20. MjM

    Niess’s ruling blocked late yesterday by 3rd district court of appeals.

Pin It on Pinterest