The fringe is the center - just a few of today's postings

I will push back against the pushback. The Majority opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is absurd. But before reaching the merits, let me comment briefly on the claim that it was not intended to question the overall outcome and that it is seemingly innocuous to use the comparisons to North Korea and Iraq. Both are equally absurd, the latter reduction ad Hitlerium as coined by Leo Strauss.


Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia

Reductio ad Hitlerum (/ˈhɪtlərəm/; Latin for "reduction to Hitler"), also known as playing the Nazi card,[1][2] is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.[3] One exaggerated example would be that since Hitler was against smoking, this implies that someone who is against smoking is a Nazi.[4]

Coined by Leo Strauss in 1953, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic called reductio ad absurdum ("reduction to the absurd").[5] According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent

The questioning of the outcome had to do with the absurd discussion of standing. I'm not going to get into the particulars of Wisconsin law, which the majority opinion claims far more lenient than standing requirements under federal law, which requires actual injury. According to the majority, standing in Wisconsin only requires that the voter plaintiff have some concern as to the validity of the election. That's where that discussion occurred.

And you cannot divorce giving weight to that argument from the conversation that occurred around the election, in which every Trump argument was that they had the right to "feel" the outcome was correct, even if they didn't have specific arguments and even if all the safeguards confirmed the result.

And I still find morally abhorrent the argument that it was not appropriate to make voting easier during Covid without person-to-person contact. That would make voting literally the only segment of society in which it was no accommodation to the fact that we were in the middle of a pandemic. That to me seems morally wrong. I would be worried for my soul if I try to enforce such a requirement.

But I also think it's a ridiculous legal argument.

The whole legal argument is summarized right here. They are essentially saying that the statutory requirement that absentee ballots be delivered to the municipal clerk cannot be satisfied to a drop box. You have to actually walk into an office and handed to an individual person. I find that an absurd construction of that statute. I'm sure if I want to spend even more time on all of this I could find numerous legal analogs word delivery to a designated official was accomplished through an analog to a drop box.

Wisconsin Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. provides, in relevant part, that absentee ballots "shall be mailed by the elector, or delivered in person, to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots." The prepositional phrase "to the municipal clerk" is key and must be given effect. Wisconsin Stat. § 5.02(10) defines "municipal clerk" as "the city clerk, town clerk, village clerk and the executive director of the city election commission and their authorized representatives. Where applicable, 'municipal clerk' also includes the clerk of a school district." An inanimate object, such as a ballot drop box, cannot be the municipal clerk. At a minimum, accordingly, dropping a ballot into an unattended drop box is not delivery "to the municipal clerk[.]"


I know one of the positive things Jeb Bush did was allow you to renew your driver's license online instead of going to the DMV office. Lawyers have gotten used to filing everything online now. I still find it highly immoral to try to specially burden the exercise of voting



With respect to the Oklahoma Gov.'s announcement, all I can say is come on. Sure he said that the financial audit was something separate and was requested, although I find even that suspect. But he actually joined the announcement, in a video statement that he made himself, that he was combining the audit with a request that the Tulsa district check for unauthorized CRT. Anyone who understands political communications knows that he's joining the two, and he's doing in a way that makes it his personal statement. How often do governors announce any act like that in a personal video? I'm sure it's happened before but I don't remember any specific examples. That's really making a statement.



Oklahoma governor calls for public schools audit for potential mishandling of public funds and teaching CRT | CNN

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt announced in a video message Thursday that he is calling for a special audit of Tulsa Public Schools (TPS) for potential mishandling of public funds and said he is "also concerned that TPS may have violated state law, specifically HB 1775, which bans public schools from teaching critical race theory."

"At the request of two Tulsa School Board members, today I am calling for a special audit of Tulsa Public Schools and the potential mishandling of public funds. As one of the largest districts in the state, TPS received over $200 million in COVID federal relief funds," Stitt said.

According to the Republican governor, parents, students, teachers and board members," deserve to know how that money was spent."

"I am also concerned that TPS may have violated state law, specifically HB 1775, which bans public schools from teaching critical race theory," he added.

 

Amen

 

More context for the Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion

 

I don't know. A lot of weird stuff happens there, but they have crack law enforcement on it

 

Tulsa School District already penalized for making a white teacher feel shame. Haven’t gotten around to that financial audit yet