Thread by @mjs_DC

My read on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision:

•4–3 to deny Trump's petition outright (Hagedorn + libs)
•6–1 to reject any remedy that involves tossing mail ballots

Only Rebecca Grassl Bradley left open the possibility to tossing ballots. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…

Hagedorn's concurrence is really good. We are lucky that there is one sane Republican on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…

Here's the language in Chief Justice Roggensack's dissent essentially saying: I'm not going to throw out ballots, but I do think the elections board may have broken the law.

Ziegler joined Roggensack's dissent; Rebecca Grassl Bradley pointedly did not. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…

I'm not going to post Rebecca Grassl Bradley's dissent because it's the same grievance-laden, middle school civics–level Federalist Society nonsense she's been spewing for ages. But here's some background on the justice, who was first appointed by Scott Walker, then elected.

In light of these dissents, the big question is whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court's trio of grievance conservatives can persuade Hagedorn to limit the Wisconsin Elections Commission's authority to make voting easy, safe, and secure. That's the next fight, and it will be ugly.

Belatedly, all credit to Linda Greenhouse for the phrase "grievance conservatives"! nytimes.com/2020/12/03/opi…