# Wisconsin Supreme Court Lets Collective Bargaining Law Stand **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510 "2011-06-15T00:33:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 50
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/50 "2011-06-15T21:00:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You have, once again, succeeded in framing the debate firmly in your area of expertise. But, just to clarify, none of this… > > …refers to the merits of the case, but to some more or less irrelevant embroidery around the edges of the issue, yes? “More or less irrelevant?” No. What she’s saying there is that the majority erred by even taking up the case on original jurisdiction. It is the majority’s reasoning allowing that action that she inveighs against. That’s not irrelevant, but neither is it the merits of the underlying action. > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that she would \*agree \*with that interpretation, or might she not take issue with it? I don’t see the part where she says that she’s just blowing some smoke. They seldom do, right? She’s not blowing smoke. But neither is she talking about the merits of the underlying action. > [@](#): > > But, be that as it may, in order for the Senate to declare a full Triumph for **Brickerus** , it requires that your enemies are scattered before you like jackals before the lion, and you parade their women as captured slaves before your chariot, as they wail lamentations. > > I suggest that a partisan divide of four against three is a mite short of such crushing victory. Indeed? Well, I’m perfectly happy that the law is settled, and settled on the precise grounds that I said it would be. In line with my previous statement about changing the rules in the middle of the game… as I look back on that previous thread, I sure don’t find any place where you suggested that there was any room for mistake – even a 4-3 partisan victory for the other side – in your position. In fact, you said: > [@Resolved: Wisconsin Republicans are subverting democratic processes](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wisconsin-republicans-are-subverting-democratic-processes/576039/111): > > Because they want her to, because she is saving their sorry butts. If you walked into the room with a legal brief that would tear her opinion to shreds and allow the Pubbies to proceed with their foot-shooting experiment, they would tie you up, gag you and stuff you into a closet. > > They don’t \*want \*to win this. They want to lose and blame it on her. That doesn’t seem to contemplate the notion that the judge’s order would be vacated, declared void back to the moment it was issued, does it? Can you point to any analysis or prediction you made in that thread that turned out to be correct? Any at all? But still, here, instead of simply admitting error, you continue to somehow insist I’ve rigged the game, “reframed” the debate so that it’s in my area of expertise. Newsflash: the entire debate was about the law. I didn’t reframe anything. I found it this way. “Reality based community?” Hah! Hah! --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510)._