Wisconsin conservatives feel ‘snookered’ by court justice

[Disir]

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The euphoria that Wisconsin Republicans felt after winning yet another major political battle in the state Supreme Court this week is being dampened by a scathing dissent written by one of the conservative justices, raising doubts about how solid the conservative majority actually is.

Democrats praised Justice Brian Hagedorn for siding with liberals against revoking the Democratic governor’s stay-at-home order on Wednesday. Republicans vented their anger on Twitter.

“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.”

Asked to respond, Hagedorn did not back down.

Wisconsin conservatives feel 'snookered' by court justice

The euphoria that Wisconsin Republicans felt after winning yet another major political battle in the state Supreme Court is being dampened thanks to a scathing dissent written by one of the conservative justices.

apnews.com

You shouldn't even expect rulings based on ideology.

 

[lennypartiv]

 

[Oddball]

The story is about Hagedorn's squishy politics, not about any explanation as to why his ruling was incorrect.

But it's AP, so whatcha gonna get?

 

[Disir]

It's about expecting rulings based on ideology.

 

[Oddball]

It's about expecting rulings based on ideology.

Fine....But there is no explanation about what makes the rulings ideological or not.....The story is one vagary stacked upon another.

 

[Disir]

It's about expecting rulings based on ideology.

Fine....But there is no explanation about what makes the rulings ideological or not.....The story is one vagary stacked upon another.

I disagree and you have an intext link to the ruling itself.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not gong to read through 161 pages of the ruling to dig it out.

The story is about ideological partisanship, yet puts absolutely no flesh on the bones of its premise.

 

[Disir]

It doesn't opine on the ruling and I am ok with that. I don't need some jackass to opine. In fact, the less opining they do the better off we are. The dissent begins on 110.