Wisconsin State Supreme Court, Rebecca Bradley, Wisconsin discussed on Mark Belling


Whether or not a voter is indefinitely confined or not, that if people have a problem with the voter, declaring themselves indefinitely confined when they're not that there are other means of dealing with this, But you can't give clerks the legal authority to not call it a vote on the basis of a voter statement that they are indefinitely confide. So that was not dealt with in the main lawsuit. So those were the four areas that they came up with that the majority decided that they were not going to overturn the results of the election in other than the indefinitely confined component. In the opinion written by Hagedorn. They said that even if there was an error in the application of Wisconsin, the election law Who not count ballots in which we don't even know which way all of the voters voted, and to throw out tens of thousands of ballots when people voted in good faith being told by their local officials that these air what the laws were and Given the fact that in every single one of these cases, the Republicans in Wisconsin could have gone to court well before the election and dealt with this then, but instead waited until after they lost. Cry and retroactively changed the rules after the fact we're not going to overturn the results of the election, the three actual conservatives on the court Dissented. Chief Justice Pat Rogan sack. Rebecca Bradley. And remember there's two Bradleys. There's conservative Bradley. That's Rebecca. And there's liberal Bradley, which is an Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Bradley, Rogan Sack and Um Oh, and it's Sigler they descended. The ruling was 4 to 3. And they argued that This has been going on for way too long that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court's majority that the three liberals was haggard word keeps saying that they don't have the authority to deal with things that are a violation of the law. In their dissent. They said, Look Where the Supreme Court that job of the Supreme Court is to decide what the law says. If you've got one person saying the law says this at another person saying the law says that that's what the Supreme Court is there to resolve that dispute by declaring what the law actually says. And the three conservatives in their descent, said. We have been punting. The Supreme Court has been punting on this to log. If the law has been violated, we need to declare that the law has been violated and address it. And if the law has been violated, We have to determine what the remedy is. And they essentially made the point that an illegally cast vote. He is just that and illegally cast vote without regard to Wyatt is in illegally cast mode. No. Most of this. In terms of who won the presidential election is academic. In order for Trump to win, you would need more states than just Wisconsin to be overturned. If the state Supreme Court overturned Wisconsin. Biden would be ahead to 90 60 to 42 somewhat arguable. Trump could win challenges and a few other states at overturned those results. So what is somewhat academic? If this election was decided, by say to see, you know, let's suppose Biden won by four electoral votes and flipping Wisconsin would have changed the result of the election. It would have made this decision. Even more controversial. Using a football analogy. They.

Coming up next