I Could Be Wrong

Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects Trump's election lawsuithttps://t.co/9E1Kew3TDA

— Patrick Marley (@patrickdmarley) December 3, 2020

 But I think there's some partisanship on the WI Supreme Court:

"We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even — and maybe especially — in high-profile cases," ["Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn"] wrote. "Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law."

In dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley maintained that leaving legal questions to the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission "deals a death blow to democracy."

"The majority's failure to act leaves an indelible stain on our most recent election," she wrote in a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justice Annette Ziegler.

Joining Hagedorn in the majority were Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky. (The Bradleys are not related.)

The ruling marked the latest instance of Hagedorn splitting with his fellow conservatives. He has angered Republicans by siding with liberals in declining to quickly take a case regarding the state's voter rolls and refusing to allow the Green Party's presidential ticket on the ballot this fall.

He also parted with conservatives by supporting Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' plan to fight the coronavirus pandemic this spring with a stay-at-home order. In that case the other Republican-backed justices were able to strike down the order because they had a larger majority then.   

And, as a bonus, why we're nearing the end of this circus of frivolous legislation (remember when that was the conservative rallying cry?  That was when corporations were being sued.  Mitch McConnell remembers.)

The court ruled quickly Thursday because time is short. 

Tuesday is the "safe harbor" date recognized in federal law by which any challenges to election results are to be resolved. If challenges are not completed by then, there is a higher risk the state's electoral votes won't be counted. 

The Electoral College is to meet Dec. 14 and Congress will count its votes on Jan. 6.  

Tick-tock goes the clock.

Are we really sure, though, the WI Supreme Court is partisan?

Trump's lawsuit took aim at the heart of an election system created by Republicans over eight years when they controlled all of state government. Republicans created the commission that oversees state elections, established the state's voting procedures and have long encouraged their supporters to vote in-person early without questioning the legitimacy of the practice.

Yup.  Pretty damned sure.

(and why did Trump's lawyers make the fundamental mistake of filing in the Supreme Court of WI rather than the trial court, since Supreme Court's usually don't hear factual disputes, but only rule on issues of law?  Because of that very "safe harbor."  Trump's diminishing chances to get a substantive case (not a procedural one, as the MI federal appeal is) to the Supremes depends on a federal lawsuit going up through the appellate courts, or a state suit where all appeals have been exhausted (e.g., Bush v. Gore).  Trump can appeal from the WI Supreme Court straight to Alito & Co., and he needs to do that post-haste.  The odds of even Alito and the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse deciding Bush v. Gore established the wrong drop-dead date are slim and none, and that date is hurtling this mess towards the finish line.  Trump's best hope of getting to the Supremes is by leaping from the WI Supreme Court.  Now he has to go back to the trial court, where he'll probably be turned out in another hearing.

And remember, knocking out WI's electoral votes won't diminish Biden's margin of victory.  It will lower the number of electoral votes available overall, per the 12th Amendment.  No effect on the outcome, in other words.

And why is the WI Supreme Court so narrowly divided on what seems to be a fundamental question of jurisdictional law?  See above, about partisanship.)