Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

No, sorry, it will not end. They will take it to court. They need to keep the issue alive to discredit Prosser and keep the base active for the recalls.

Of the potential outcomes, we should see if we can't set some odds:

1. Kloppenburg bravely refuses to surrender the will of the people to the villainous, fraudulent Republican machine and files a suit that lands in Judge Sumi's court.

2. Kloppenburg refuses to publicly admit defeat and attempts to go on with her life by wholly ignoring that any of this actually took place. Questions from the press asking her to congratulate Prosser are met with 30 seconds of silence.

3. Kloppenburg discovers, possibly for the first time in her life, an ounce of class and briefly says something passingly neutral about Prosser. Then goes on to praise her own efforts in a 20 minute press statement.

Speaking of Sumi... I haven't seen mention of that restraining order in a while. What's the status of that? Argument scheduled? Waiting for some decision or other?

Klutzenpopper is likely to sue over her loss.

Sumi has scheduled more arguments for later this month. Meantime, the State AG has petitioned the SCOWI for a hearing in which he'd like them to tell Sumi to get the hell out of the way. That's June 6th.

Also: the Pubbies are thinking of inserting the Walker labor provisions into the state budget bill, also due out in mid-June.

This sustained tantrum by Kloppenburg is incontrovertible evidence of her unfitness to act as an impartial judge in a court of law.

W/R to Sumi, As I remember, the hearing is in recess while the state legislature is in session (Legislators and staff have some degree of immunity while in session). It will be curious to see what she does now that Prosser has been reelected. Keep up the farce? Let it go? Sumi's already been re-elected (same election day as Prosser) so she's set now.

How long is Prosser's term?

My money is on a court case.

Let's ponder something for a moment:

This entire move by the Democrats, to have a Democrat nominated Judge on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, has had as it primary objective the placing of A PARTISAN OPERATIVE on the highest court in Wisconsin. (we're not discussing their ultimate goal at this time).

This is SHAMEFUL.

Our system of laws and courts rests on the principle of the rule of LAWS not MEN.

Accordingly, though humans are imperfect and have biases, we expect our laws to be interpreted by judges as free of bias as humanly possible and that candidates for judgeship's should be put forward WITH THAT IDEAL IN MIND so that the public can be assured that cases brought before them will be decided by what the LAW in question SAYS and NOT by the personal OPINIONS or the agenda of the judges presiding.

America's system of Laws and it's LACK OF BIAS and EQUAL APPLICATION in enforcing them has always been unique and is foundational to our freedom and liberty because it can be known by all what the LAWS are and that ALL are bound by those LAWS.

More and more we have seen our courts politicized to the point where it is now automatically assumed by many that because someone was appointed by or is a member of a certain political party that they will pass judgments that lean TOWARDS the agenda OF THAT PARTY (regardless of how they dress up the ruling in legalese).

This means that those people view our higher courts as an UBER panel of partisans that will pronounce judgments based less on the law than on a particular agenda.

This is corrosive to our form of government.

That this partisan view isn't a fact is due only to the ethics and morality of a majority of those who sit on those higher courts.

The Democrats have shown PUBLICLY that they are not bound by those ethics or morality or by the principle of the RULE OF LAW.

After this very repulsive woman(?)Kloppenburg is declared the loser, she will refuse to accept the result. The public service unions and the leftist main stream media will declare her the true winner of the fraudulent election. She will don judicial robes, a white wig and will show up when the court goes into session and claim to be a "justice in exile" of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She will issue her own rulings which will be published, commented upon, and debated by the moron leftist scholars at the University of Wisconsin School of law. Finally, her rulings will be accepted and adhered to by the City of Madison and members of all the public service unions in Wisconsin. Her condition will come to be known as "Kloppenburg syndrome" and will be studied and written about in The Journal of the American Psychiatric Association in the coming years. Eventually Kloppenburg will claim that she had sex with JFK, Elvis and Bill Clinton at the same, was at Woodstock, has a preserved alien corpse from Area 51 in the freezer in her garage time, and claim that Bob Dylan's "Positively Fourth Street" is about her. In the end, she may be correct about being Dylan's muse.

"after the devastating loss to David Prosser."

Devastating loss here meaning losing by .5% when polls just two months earlier showed Prosser winning by 30%. Quick question, how many wisconsin GOP state congresscritters won their elections by 30% or more? That's not coincidentally also the list of WI GOP state congresscritters not currently messing themselves.

@Insufficiently Sensitive May 19, 2011 11:27 AM . . . I agree. By her actions, she proved she lacks judgment. But I personally think it goes well beyond that.

I think she has persuasively demonstrated that she lacks the judgment and professionalism to return to and continue in her current position as an assistant attorney general, not only because of the actions she took in endlessly pursuing this recount (especially after having learned of the outcome of the GAB investigation of the Waukesha County incident on election night before she decided to undertake the recount), but also because of outrageous, patently untrue and, in my opinion, unethical attacks she leveled at Justice Prosser during the campaign.

As I noted in a prior comment on another thread, on two occasions JoAnne Kloppenburg leveled an egregious and patently false personal charge aimed at Justice Prosser, written about here (w/link to debate):

"In a videotaped interview on March 16, 2011, Kloppenburg declared that Prosser had 'prejudged matters that are likely to come before the court. '

She repeated the charge in a debate six days later, saying: 'I, unlike my opponent, will approach cases with an open mind and without having prejudged the matters that come before the court. '"

When she was asked about those charges, her campaign spokesperson conceded that they could not point to a single fact to back up that charge, or any evidence to validate the claim.

In that prior comment, I also linked to the specific attorney ethics rule which, in my opinion, prohibits lawyers and judicial candidates from making such baseless statements.

Perhaps even more egregious, however, is her current course of action which seems to consist of an effort to subvert our transitional processes for purely partisan gain. Naturally, partisanship is at the heart of our political contests, as it ought to be. But when the race is over, continuing to pursue baseless means to challenge and even to threaten to try and subvert the outcome, is just inexcusable behavior, especially for a public servant.

One other thing that really puzzles me is that with even liberal-leaning newspapers turning against her, and nonpartisan government agencies being forced to defend themselves from her false characterizations, it does seems odd that no polling organizations have published polls testing the Wisconsin public mood in response to her intransigence.

Maybe I missed it, but I do recall there were a number of polls conducted during the race. The people of Wisconsin have to be pretty fed up with her petulant behavior by this time!

@Tlaloc, for Kloppenburg it was a devastating loss. After all, the day following the election, prior to any canvassing, and seemingly a mere 204 votes ahead in the incomplete first count, she held a press conference declaring that she and her supporters were "ecstatic" and she vehemently insisted to a skeptical reporter that she had unquestionably won.

Once the full count showed up, of course, she was over 7,000 votes down. She was devastated.

So, you tell me where I'm wrong? To her, it was a devastating loss, one she is obviously incapable of dealing with in an appropriate manner.

"So, you tell me where I'm wrong? To her, it was a devastating loss, one she is obviously incapable of dealing with in an appropriate manner. "

"to her" being the operative words. To the larger world this was an incredibly near miss for a GOP candidate who by all rights should have been a shoo in by double digits. Again the number of WI GOPers who are pondering that 29.5% drop of Prossers over the course of two months has to be rather large.

@Tialoc - of course it was a devastating defeat for Democrats in Wisconsin. Comparing the previous polling numbers pre-union legislation is irrelevant. This came down to a referendum on Walker, and it was the best case scenario for Wisconsin Dems -- lots of union money, union GOTV, motivated electorate, students voting in droves in Madison, etc. And in the best case scenario for Dems in Wisconsin they couldn't pull it off; there will not be another best case scenario for them and they know it.

"Comparing the previous polling numbers pre-union legislation is irrelevant."

uh...cause you say so? Sorry no. You're right that it was a referendum on Walker but it was also an incumbent in judicial race where the incumbent almost always wins and where the pro-walker canidate was expected to win in a walk and instead won in a nail biter. Losing 30 points, a 15 point swing, is a HUGE deal.

"And in the best case scenario for Dems in Wisconsin they couldn't pull it off; there will not be another best case scenario for them and they know it."

This wasn't the best case situation by a long shot. Prosser could only be indirectly connected to the anti-union legislation and he still took an enormous hit. The actual congressmen who voted on the bill, and walker himself are much more directly vulnerable, and few if any of them had the kind of cushion prosser had to save them.

Reading the near defeat of a once invulnerable candidate like Prosser as anything but a huge wake up call is a mistake.

Actually, @Tlaloc they're not called congressmen.

They're called assembly members and senators. And, they were doing the job for which they were hired by the people of Wisconsin, which was being present during sessions, participating in committee deliberations and floor debates, and actually showing up to vote on important public policy measures to help stave off a looming budgetary disaster that years of inattentiveness on the part of many of their predecessors had put on their plates.

When faced with the necessity of taking austerity measures to save the state's fiscal stability, those members of the legislature who you wrongly call "congressmen" did not cheat the voters and go trundling down to Illinois to hide in motels to avoid doing their jobs, like so many of their utterly disgraceful Democrat counterparts did.

The actions of those cowardly Democrats was a devastating defeat of respect for our democratic institutions and adherence to the rule of law.

And yet the public seems to have sided with the dems far more than the GOP on this one. So your interpretation seems to be in the minority. The majority looks at a bill that Walker claimed up down and sideways was necessary to restore fiscal sanity and then as soon as he couldn't get it passed turned right around and swore it had nothing to do with fiscal matters (so it could be passed without a quorum. One time or another he blatantly lied to voters. They seem to have noticed.

As far as the dems leaving, that's more laborious but philosophically identical to a filibuster (preventing the majority from voting on a matter). Since you have no problem with your side filibustering I'm going to go ahead and ignore your complaints about the other side doing it.