Vanity: Pretzel Logic in the Wisconsin Supreme Court

December 14, 2020 | self

[PBRCat]

The majority opinion was written by Justice Brian Hagedorn who analogized the Trump election contest to challenging a play in a football game after the contest was over and the score went final. The opinion is pure sophistry that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, himself, would find it difficult to top.

After putting forward this ridiculous opinion, Justice Hagedorn added a concurring opinion agreeing with his own decision! What made this unusual move doubly bizarre is that Hagedorn preceded to relate that numerous mistakes and errors were made by election officials and Wisconsin laws were broken in the process.

He added this concurring opinion with the view of proposing improvements and corrections that ought to apply to future elections. How about rectifying the farce that occurred on November 3, 2020?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling against Trump is a travesty. Hagedorn's cowardly opinions can only be described as an exercise in pretzel logic.

[2harddrive]

It is a National Security issue!
https://www.theepochtimes.com/security-group-says-it-audited-dominion-voting-machines-declares-them-a-national-security-issue_3617693.html

[2harddrive]

More info: https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/michigan-dominion-report/?fbclid=IwAR0aYgYIGJwez8XZVsuKF6KQXpjTeJlOvadrKla7Otth7sfIeGsR9feH9F4

[lee martell]

Earworm Warning! Now I’ll be thinking about that album by Steely Dan called Pretzel Logic.
Their big hit: “Ricky Don’t Lose That Number” is on it.

[bigbob]

In Hagedorn’s impeccable reasoning, you can’t wait til after an election to sue for election fraud.

Follow the money, this guy’s got to be on someone’s payroll to come up with pretzel logic like this.

[facedown]

...that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, himself, would find it difficult to top.

He would see that as a challenge.

[Secret Agent Man]

not cowardly

deliberate gross iniquity

[Secret Agent Man]

and you cant sue before the election because you need to have bring such challenges after the election has occurred, according to the law

so therefore no one can contest election fraud

[ptsal]

Ripe and laches...

Catch-22

[dfwgator]

You must be joking son, where did you get those shoes?

[lepton]

The majority opinion was written by Justice Brian Hagedorn who analogized the Trump election contest to challenging a play in a football game after the contest was over and the score went final.

---

Or several dozen cited plays with one team with 14 men on the field that was not actually observable during the game, and where the final score was not calculated until a week later.

[G Larry]

The convoluted nature of this ruling makes it ripe for review by a higher court.

[Still Thinking]

In Hagedorn’s impeccable reasoning, you can’t wait til after an election to sue for election fraud.

And you definitely can't sue before because you haven't been harmed yet, so you don't have standing.

[PBRCat]

While this may not apply to Wisconsin where early voting is supposed to be prohibited unless you’re hosting a Get Out the Vote Rally in the local parks (wink, wink), early voting has led to a plethora of difficulties for lawyers engaged in pre-election litigation. Sorry, no, Early voting is underway so you’ll have to wait until later. Contest the election after the voting and it’s too late.

[PBRCat]

The dissenting opinions are more persuasive than anything contained in the majority opinion.

[AndyJackson]

you can’t wait til after an election to sue for election fraud.

This view is au fait.

[kiryandil]

"Wisconzuela"

There is no law in Cheeseland - just armed gunthugs for the corrupt state.

[blueplum]

This is like saying a race horse won the the race because everyone saw it, ignoring that a positive post-race doping test would disqualify that winner.