"The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated a state abortion ban that was enacted in 1849 and had been dormant for five decades...."

"The court ruled 4-3 to strike down the ban, and while the justices are officially nonpartisan, the decision split them along ideological lines. A new justice who had campaigned on her support for abortion rights, Janet Protasiewicz, joined the majority....Writing for the majority in the case, known as Kaul v. Urmanski, Justice Rebecca Dallet [wrote]... 'Comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the "who, what, where, when, and how" of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion'.... The opinion noted that the court had historically set a high bar for such 'implied repeal.' But in this case, the majority of the justices found that the Legislature had met that bar by entirely revising state law on abortion.... In a separate order Wednesday, the court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin that had asked the court to find that the right to equal protection in the state Constitution protects a right to receive an abortion and protects medical professionals who provide one. The court said its ruling in Kaul v. Urmanski effectively settled the issue...."

The NYT reports.

That is, the decision is based on statutory interpretation and not on a state constitutional right. It's up to the legislature to make new law restricting (or permitting) abortion. The 1849 law is gone, but some or all of it could be reenacted. If that were to happen, question about the state constitutional right would need to be answered.

"Was it all bullshit?" — Trump asked, about Elon Musk's promise to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget.

We're told in "Inside Trump and Musk’s Complicated Relationship/The president and his aides have sometimes expressed frustration with Musk, but his advisers say the two remain close" (Wall Street Journal)(no paywall encountered).

We're also told Trump has called Musk "50% genius, 50% boy" or perhaps it was "90% genius, 10% boy."

More substantively:

Musk clashed with senior White House officials, as he made dramatic government cuts without consulting others, including White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and senior officials in the communications office, aides said. For several weeks, top Trump aides regularly learned from news reports or cabinet secretaries what DOGE was doing—even when the cost-cutting department laid off hundreds of people or sought sensitive data from agencies, according to the aides. He also clashed with personnel aides over vetting of some of his staff, some of the people said, believing the White House shouldn’t control his team at DOGE....

I assume that's a misplaced participle and that the phrase beginning with "believing" modifies "He." Don't they have AI to fix things like that?

Anyway, the person who could promise to cut $1 trillion was the person who envisioned himself with vast, unchecked power. Was it all bullshit? Not if you let him do it. Then it wouldn't be bullshit, though it might be crazy. Even on Trump's scale of sane to crazy.

Let me cherry-pick this:

Trump grew irritated in April when he learned Musk was getting a top-secret briefing at the Pentagon on China.... He said Musk getting the briefing was a conflict of interest, two administration officials said. Trump told aides that Musk, who has space contracts, shouldn’t be working at the Pentagon....

And here's some interesting material about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election:

White House aides were... dismayed at how involved Musk became in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, because they believed Brad Schimel, who was backed by Musk and the state’s Republican party, wasn’t going to win, and the race was becoming a referendum on Musk and Trump. Musk was dismissive of those concerns, saying the polling he commissioned showed Schimel had a chance. Trump became annoyed after doing a town hall with Schimel, telling advisers that he was done with him because Schimel couldn’t answer questions cogently about abortion, according to people familiar with the matter....

Of course, Schimel lost.  

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities..."

"In its two-page order, the court said it was acting to protect public confidence in Wisconsin courts during the criminal proceedings against [Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C.] Dugan. The order noted that the court was acting on its own initiative and was not responding to a request from anyone. Liberal justices control the court 4-3."

AP reports.

Meanwhile, Dugan has an insanely high-level defense team. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says:

"The sentence, dull but clear, was buried 158 pages into Wisconsin’s budget. 'For the limit for the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year,' the sentence read..."

"... when it was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, 'add $325' to the amount school districts could generate through property taxes for each student. But by the time Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and his veto pen were finished, it said something else entirely: 'For the limit for 2023-2425, add $325.' It was clever. Creative. Perhaps even a bit subversive, extending the increase four centuries longer than lawmakers intended. But was it legal? On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yes. In a 4-to-3 ruling in a lawsuit challenging Mr. Evers’s use of his partial veto authority, the court’s liberal majority said the governor had acted legally. The three conservative justices on the court dissented...."

From "Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Governor’s 400-Year Edit Was Within Veto Authority/Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, used his veto power to increase school funding limits for four centuries longer than Republican lawmakers in the state had intended" (NYT).

"That speech puts Cory Booker as one of the leaders for the Democratic Party for 2028."

Said "Frank Luntz: Booker marathon speech 'may have changed the course of political history'" (The Hill).

Everyone's talking like Trump now. Just get rid of the weasel word "may" and you have Trump-style rhetoric: Booker's speech changed the course of political history.

And then there was Elon Musk the other day, saying that the Wisconsin Supreme Court election would affect the entire destiny of humanity. No, he wasn't that Trumpian. He had weasel words. He said "I feel like this is one of those things that may not seem that it’s going to affect the entire destiny of humanity, but I think it will."

Speaking of speaking bluntly, here's Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley talking about that election:

Turnout in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

I'm just watching what rolls in on my search on X for "wisconsin turnout." It's being said that high turnout favors Schimel (the Trump-endorsed candidate), and I'm seeing a lot of Schimel-oriented gloating about turnout on my plainly neutral search.

Sample tweets: "The first turnout numbers in Wisconsin indicate we could see an incredible 35% increase in turnout over the 2023 State Supreme Court race. That's +650K raw votes"/"Large voter turnout in our Wisconsin small community"/"I was number 123 at 10:00 a.m. this morning and are very rural small town in Central Wisconsin population 400. my sister voted at 8:00 a.m. at the same place and she was 25 so pretty good turnout for our little area."

Pasting Susan Crawford posters on public property in Madison.

The fine print says "VOTE BY 04.O1/FOR SUSAN CRAWFORD."

Crawford is one of the candidates in the much-watched Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

I photographed the posters this morning, but yesterday evening, I saw the man pasting them up. I couldn't believe that he had the nerve, in daylight hours, to deface public property. How does it help your candidate to conspicuously trash the neighborhood of the people you hope to influence? Are you picturing desperate, anarchic citizens who don't care about anything but abortion?

If I were Susan Crawford, I would be distressed to have my name on something like this. I have no idea if she or her campaign has anything to do with it. The ultra-fine print might answer that question, but it's not legible in my photographs and most definitely not legible to those of driving through the underpass.

A pedestrian could stop and read the ultra-fine print. Of course, pedestrians walking through an underpass, especially if female, can feel physically vulnerable, and pasted-up posters can magnify fear. Vandalism speaks of chaos and a breakdown of vigilance. Maybe that's the idea. The woman worries about the problem of rape, and the posters offer the second-rate solution: abortion.

UPDATE: Here's the ultra-fine print:

I'm in the group that is eligible to be handed a $1,000,000 check by Elon Musk.

He writes, on X:

On Sunday night, I will give a talk in Wisconsin. 

Entrance is limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election. 

How does he know? Is this public information? 

I will also personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote. 

This is super important.

Important. And insane. Who does elections like this? I assume he's had his lawyers check out the legality, but I'd like to hear an explanation of why this isn't illegal. Is it just that it's so weird the legislature hasn't written a statute criminalizing it yet? There may be statutes against paying someone to vote for a particular candidate, but he's not even saying who he wants us to vote for. And he's not paying us to vote, he's showing us how to get into the category of persons whose names are entered in a raffle. 

This reminds me of a Wisconsin case some years back where 3 young men, "armed with shovels, a crowbar, and a box of condoms," gave up in the middle of an effort to dig up the body of a recently deceased young woman. At first, it seemed as though none of the criminal statutes covered what they did. Just because something should be a crime doesn't mean that it is currently a crime. Get creative enough, and you may slip through the cracks. But would you dare? Musk dares.

I wouldn't even dare to endure the lines and crowding involved in showing up for a chance at $1,000,000. I'm risk averse. Musk isn't.

UPDATE: Musk has deleted the above-linked tweet, and I'm seeing "Musk butts up against Wisconsin state law with (now deleted) $1 million check giveaway/Election law experts were skeptical about the billionaire’s move" (Politico).

"What do you think Musk is buying?"/"What do you think will happen to us if Brad Schimel wins?"

Every day, multiple glossy anti-Schimel cards come in the mail. I photographed the latest bunch:

The quotes in the post title — to be found on the cards — ask us what we think. The facts are hazy, but threatening and sexual, and we're nudged to angst and ideate? This, in a city where an awful lot of people are cranking each other up about politics.

"All Voters who believe in Common Sense should GET OUT TO VOTE EARLY for Brad Schimel. By turning out and VOTING EARLY, you will be helping to Uphold the Rule of Law..."

"... Protect our Incredible Police, Secure our Beloved Constitution, Safeguard our Inalienable Rights, and PRESERVE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."

That's how Trump put it on Truth Social, quoted in "Trump Jumps Into a Major Wisconsin Court Race With an Endorsement/The president threw his support to Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in a race for control of the battleground state’s top court. Elon Musk has spent millions of dollars on the contest" (NYT).

Does it help a state supreme court candidate to be so closely aligned with Trump? Don't we — a lot of us — think judges should be politically neutral arbiters of the law? 

Well, as Trump portrays it, it's the other side that's political. His guy is there to uphold the law and protect our rights. Trump is a political figure, but he respects the traditional values of the judiciary and vouches for Brad Schimel as an upholder of those values. Of course, that's utter garbage to the other side. This is the conventional discourse of judicial elections in Wisconsin. It's possible that the appeal to traditional values motivates conservatives more than liberals, but is Trump's position on traditional values credible, or does his appearance fire up the Trump haters?

Most important here is that the judicial election is isolated from more political elections, so there tends to be a low turnout. There are a lot of people in Wisconsin who love Trump. Maybe these people wouldn't even notice the judicial election or wouldn't bother to vote, but if Trump says, come on, this matters, get out there, maybe they'll stampede to the polls. Yes, it's a cue to Trump haters to get out there and cancel those votes, but the anti-Trumpers are a step behind.

The relevant election day is April 1st. Trump says vote early. If you wait until election day, you might forget or you might have something else going on.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates debate.

The difference between these Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel is sharply defined.

AND: Here's a new NYT article, "The Trump Loyalist Aiming to Swing Wisconsin Back to the Right/Brad Schimel, a judge who is so supportive of the president that he dressed up as him for Halloween, is hoping to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court for conservatives":

The state’s Democratic Party is airing television ads tying Mr. Musk to Judge Schimel....

Click that link to see an ad that shows Elon Musk wielding the chain saw and giving the "Nazi" salute over and over again.

Bagmen.

Isn't it Soros plan electing his bag "person" Susan Crawford to our highest court?

— Gregory Jon (@gregoryjon) February 22, 2025

Is this the correct usage of the term "bagman"? The definition I'm seeing in the OED is "One who collects or administers the collection of money obtained by racketeering and other dishonest means." And "A bagman is one who administers the collection of graft money from either the underworld or the business world and its subsequent distribution among politicians and civil servants." It would be more accurate to call Musk and Soros "bagmen" than to call Crawford and Schimel "bagperson" and bagman."

By the way, you don't have to say "bag person." The OED has "bag woman" — in this criminal sense — going back to 1960: "Last week another million dollar action was begun against Powell by Mrs. Esther James, a 64-year old widow, who charged Powell had libeled her in terming her a ‘bag woman’ for uptown cops with underworld figures."

"Musk is trying to buy off Brad Schimel and take over control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court so that Schimel can rubber-stamp an extreme agenda of banning abortion and cozying up to corporations."

"It’s not surprising that Schimel is groveling for the support of shady special interests — he’s already been caught begging on his knees for far-right donors to give him cash, and now Elon seems to be answering his pleas."

Said the spokesman for the Susan Crawford campaign, Derrick Honeyman, quoted in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that says "Elon Musk-backed group Building America's Future purchased over $670,000 in TV ads supporting conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel." 

Elon is everywhere.

"Liberal Justice Opts Out: Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Heats Up."

Tweets Grok, with the disclaimer, "Grok is an early feature and can make mistakes. Verify its outputs."

In a significant development for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has announced she will not seek reelection next year, with her current term ending on July 31, 2025. This decision has stirred up the race for control of the court, as it could potentially shift the balance of power from the current 4-3 liberal majority. The announcement has improved the odds for conservatives to regain the majority they lost last year. The race for her seat is already heating up, with conservative and former Attorney General Brad Schimel announcing his candidacy. This news has far-reaching implications for the state's judicial landscape and political dynamics in the swing state.

I blogged many, many words about Ann Walsh Bradley, back in 2011, the days of the Wisconsin protests, e.g., "No criminal charges against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser or Justice Anne Walsh Bradley in the so-called 'chokehold' incident," "I've finally waded through the 'chokehold' investigation file," and — sorry this is coming up on the morning of the obituary for O.J. Simpson — "Attacks upon the neck."

"[Dean] Phillips has accused the DNC of working to obstruct the presidential primary process by changing the Democratic primary schedule, refusing to hold debates..."

"... and preventing the engagement of delegates from New Hampshire. 'I don’t know how to better articulate these efforts than, yes, a threat to democracy by undermining it and suppressing it,' Phillips told The Post last month."

From "Wisconsin Supreme Court orders longshot Dem candidate Dean Phillips be added to primary ballot" (NY Post).

Here's the court's unanimous opinion. Excerpt:

"In an angry dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler, one of three conservatives on the panel, denounced the liberal majority as 'robewearers'...."

From "Justices in Wisconsin Order New Legislative Maps/The ruling, coming just months after liberals gained a 4-to-3 majority on the State Supreme Court, could undo gerrymanders that have given Republicans lopsided control of the State Legislature" (NYT).

On the other side:

Justice Jill J. Karofsky, writing for the majority, said that Wisconsin’s current maps violate a requirement in the State Constitution “that Wisconsin’s state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory.”

“Given the language in the Constitution, the question before us is straightforward,” she wrote. “When legislative districts are composed of separate, detached parts, do they consist of ‘contiguous territory’? We conclude that they do not.”

I see that Democrats are exulting, but why would more compact, contiguous districts help Democrats? Their problem has been that Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas. If the court's decision means what that Karofsky quote says, won't more Democrats end up packed into districts that already had a safe Democratic majority?

Our former governor, Scott Walker, said "This is not the win the left thinks it is." 

Given a new 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, "a liberal-backed legal complaint alleges Wisconsin’s decades-old school choice program violates the state Constitution and has created a 'funding death spiral' for public schools."

The Wisconsin State Journal reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed directly in the state supreme court, argues that the program violates the Public-Purpose Requirement and Uniform Taxation Clause.

The Wisconsin Capitol looms ominously in The New York Times today.

I'm seeing this Jamelle Bouie piece this morning:

 

The issue, as you may have guessed, is legislative districting, which strongly favors Republicans, and the current threat to impeach the new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Janet Protasiewicz, who got elected after declaring that the districting in Wisconsin is "rigged."

Bouie writes:

"This could become a fireball that eats all of them up throughout 2024."

"The longer they push this forward, the more political price we want to build for Republicans in the Legislature and the whole G.O.P. machinery."

Said Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, quoted in "Why Republicans Could Impeach a Liberal Judge Before She’s Heard a Case/Republicans in Wisconsin have floated impeaching a newly seated liberal State Supreme Court justice who is threatening conservatives’ grip on state politics" (NYT).

A "hinge moment."

Today is a hinge moment in the political history of Wisconsin: we go from a far-right state Supreme Court majority to a progressive one. At 5 pm, Janet Protasiewicz—who won the April 4 election—will be sworn in. The path here is a testament to the power of grit. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/JQfNU1V6ez

— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) August 1, 2023

Is "hinge moment" becoming a common expression? I like that it seems like a replacement for "inflection point," which has always annoyed me.