Election Win Sticks the Dagger in Trump & MAGA in Wisconsin

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch: Episode Summary

Episode Title: Election Win Sticks the Dagger in Trump & MAGA in Wisconsin
Release Date: July 2, 2025
Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifilo

---

Overview

In this compelling episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch, the hosts delve into a landmark decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that has significant implications for abortion rights and the broader political landscape. The discussion highlights the court's ruling, the influence of political figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump on judicial appointments, and the critical role of state elections in shaping the judiciary.

---

1. Wisconsin Supreme Court's Historic Ruling on Abortion [00:30 - 07:40]

The episode opens with an in-depth analysis of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decision overturning a longstanding abortion ban. The hosts break down the court's reasoning and the legal intricacies involved.

• Background of the Ruling:

  The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a close 4-3 decision, declared that the state's abortion ban, which had been in place since 1849, was no longer valid. Instead, the court upheld a series of statutes enacted by the Wisconsin legislature that protect reproductive rights up to the point of fetal viability (~21 weeks).

• Key Elements of the Decision:

  The ruling emphasized that comprehensive legislation passed over the past 50 years effectively repealed the old 19th-century ban. As stated by the Legal Analyst at [00:30]:

  "The Wisconsin legislature superseded the earlier law by rewriting it and revising it. And that's the law that now comes back into effect now that the Supreme Court has taken away the federal constitutional right to choose."

  Justice Janet Prota Sewitz played a pivotal role in this decision, maintaining the liberal majority on the court and ensuring the protection of women's reproductive rights.

• Impact of Political Influence:

  The episode discusses the attempted influence by Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who invested substantial resources aiming to sway the court's composition in favor of anti-abortion stances. However, their efforts were thwarted as Susan Crawford, a pro-choice candidate, won the seat, reinforcing the court's liberal majority.

  "The Wisconsin voters rejected that [attempt by Musk and Trump]. And the good news is now with the addition of Susan Crawford, the 4 to 3 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court."

2. The Interplay Between Elections and the Judiciary [07:40 - 11:40]

The conversation shifts to the broader implications of judicial elections and their impact on state and national politics.

• Judicial Elections and Voter Responsibility:

  The hosts emphasize the importance of state elections in determining the composition of supreme courts, which often have long-lasting effects on legal precedents. Michael Popok remarks at [07:40]:

  "Elections matter. Supreme courts are often in control and they're all, they're often quasi-political and often elected. So pay attention to who is on your Supreme Court."

• Long-Term Effects of Political Appointments:

  The discussion highlights how figures like Donald Trump have reshaped the federal judiciary by appointing numerous conservative judges, leading to a predominantly right-wing Supreme Court that may remain unchanged for decades. Popok notes:

  "The United States Supreme Court will continue to be a right-wing MAGA majority for at least the next two decades because of Donald Trump."

• Hope for Future Changes:

  Despite the current conservative dominance, there is cautious optimism about future shifts, particularly if Democratic candidates gain more influence in judicial appointments. The hosts express hope for more liberal justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson in higher judicial positions.

3. The Critical Role of State Judiciary in Reining in Extremism [10:03 - 11:40]

The episode underscores the significance of state-level judicial actions in counteracting federal-level shifts toward conservative extremism.

• State Courts as Buffers:

  State supreme courts and legislatures play a crucial role in safeguarding rights and counterbalancing federal judicial appointments. The Legal Analyst states:

  "It is going to be the states and has been the states, both the attorneys general and the governors, the state houses and the supreme courts that are going to help reign in Donald Trump through lawsuits, through legislation and through their supreme courts."

• Call to Action:

  Listeners are urged to remain vigilant and active in state elections, ensuring that elected judges uphold democratic values and protect individual rights.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch provides a thorough examination of the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision on abortion, highlighting the interplay between state elections, judicial appointments, and broader political strategies. The hosts advocate for active participation in state elections to maintain a balanced and fair judiciary, emphasizing that local actions can have profound national implications.

Listeners are encouraged to engage further by subscribing to the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Legal AF Substack for more in-depth analyses and updates on legal and political developments.

---

Notable Quotes

• [00:30] Unknown Legal Analyst:

  "The Wisconsin legislature superseded the earlier law by rewriting it and revising it. And that's the law that now comes back into effect now that the Supreme Court has taken away the federal constitutional right to choose."

• [07:40] Unknown Legal Analyst:

  "Elections matter. Supreme courts are often in control and they're all, they're often quasi-political and often elected. So pay attention to who is on your Supreme Court."

• [10:03] Unknown Legal Analyst:

  "It is going to be the states and has been the states, both the attorneys general and the governors, the state houses and the supreme courts that are going to help reign in Donald Trump through lawsuits, through legislation and through their supreme courts."

---

Stay Connected

For more detailed discussions, court filings, and exclusive content, visit the Legal AF Substack. Subscribe today to access ad-free podcasts, interviews, and daily legal rundowns.

---

Transcript

[Michael Popak]

This is one of the most spectacular venues with all kinds of character and hospitality scenery. These people in this Kitty Task valley, they love when you come to see what they have to offer.

[JJ Harris]

I'm JJ Harris, Ellensburg Rodeo Clown, and I want to invite you to the rodeo. Come hang out with us in Ellensburg. Great rodeo, great time. Two performances on Saturday. One is the Extreme Bulls of the Year event. Do not miss the Ellensburg Rodeo August 29th through September 1st. We'll see you there.

[Unknown Legal Analyst]

We got some good news coming out of a Supreme Court. It's just not the United States Supreme Court, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court. You know, the one that Elon Musk tried to screw around with and buy a seat on. Well, they just ruled 4 to 3 that the abortion ban on the books in Wisconsin for 176 years since 1849 is no longer good law. That the Wisconsin legislature had put in place a series of statutes that allows for choice, for reproductive rights, for freedom of choice of women, and that allows for the abortion to be part of that choice up until the moment of viability or at about 21 weeks. So now we have a state supreme court stepping forward to protect women and I'm here for it and so are you. You're on Midas Touch and Legal af Supreme Court of Wisconsin. You may recall we spent a lot of time talking about it over the last several months as Elon Musk spent $20 million to try to get his chosen candidate and an anti abortion candidate at that elected Brad Schimmel. He lost to Susan Crawford. But Susan Crawford is not part of the 4 to 3 because she hasn't been seated yet. The 4 to 3 she'll preserve the 4 to 3 liberal majority in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But the person who really can be thanked for breaking that tie and making it four to three to protect women's rights is Justice Janet Prota Sewitz. She's been on the Midas Touch Network justice protest. Say what's her actual campaign when she ran because these are elected officials in Wisconsin, like some states for the Supreme Court, she said she was running on a pro right to choose platform. She got her chance right now in a case that we referred to as call, which is the attorney general of the State vs. Urmansky. It was a way to bring this to the United States, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court by way of a declaratory judgment action. Let me it's a relatively short decision opinion delivered by and written by Judge Dalley. Here's Rebecca Frank Dally. This is what she said in Dobbs vs Jackson, Women's Health in 2022, the United States Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent, including Roe vs Wade, and held for the first time that the United States Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. In the wake of that decision. Let me break here for a minute. We have these springing statutes where states had on the books that if Roe vs. Wade was ever rescinded because they've been campaigning to get it rescinded for 50 years, if it was ever overturned, that whatever statute was on their books from old timey times would spring back to life and would be the law of that state. And so there was this springing statute problem because on the books of Wisconsin, the argument was that in 1849 they criminalized abortion. However, since that time, in the subsequent years in the 60s and 70s and 80s, the Wisconsin legislature didn't criminalize it and set up an entire structure, entire statutory scheme to regulate reproductive rights, including abortion. So the argument that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin adopted is that the Wisconsin legislature superseded the earlier law by rewriting it and revising it. And that's the law that now comes back into effect now that the Supreme Court has taken away the federal constitutional right to choose. Let me read to you from the order. We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the who, what, where, when and how of abortion is so thoroughly covers the entire subject matter of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near total ban on abortion. That's on page two of her order. They then say on page three that the central question before us is whether that statute, the bans abortion, that subsection or precursor to it, has been on the book since 1849 and prohibits intentionally destroying the life of an unborn child, subject only to a narrow exception for a therapeutic abortion that is necessary to save the life of the mother. That's from 1849. But then the court ruled. We focus our analysis on plaintiff's argument and conclude that under the unique circumstances presented here, the legislature impliedly repealed that provision. I just read you as to abortion by enacting comprehensive legislation about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when and how health care providers may lawfully perform abortions. That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject matter of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near total ban.

[Unknown Advertiser]

This show is sponsored by Liquid iv. Sometimes when my family is fast asleep and nobody's watching but the family dog.

[Unknown Legal Analyst]

I get my big pile of car.

[Unknown Advertiser]

Magazines and the Sunday paper with a sleeve of chocolate chip cookies and a glass of oat milk. Love looks different for everyone, especially when it comes to all the ways you treat and celebrate yourself. Gift yourself the everyday indulgence of extraordinary hydration from Liquid IV powered by Live hydro science. Visit liquidiv.com and fall in love with flavors like the zesty new Hydration Multiplier, Sugar free Raspberry Lemonade and Use Code legalif to save 20% off your first first order I always make sure I have Liquid IV and it's easy to use packets handy in my gym bag and my carry on computer bag when I'm traveling. Nothing like a quick burst of pina colada to give me the hydration I need and take me to my happy place. Hydration and getting enough each and every day, especially as the days are about to get that much longer, is a quest we are all on. But with Liquid IV I know that with a few packs a day I'm ensuring that when I'm on the go, I'm not neglecting staying hydrated. Liquid IV has true to fruit flavors that keep you hydrated. Find all your favorite hydration multiplier flavors on their website from Acai Berry and Lemon Lime to Pina Colada, or choose from their line of sugar free flavors like Raspberry Lemonade, White Peach and Rainbow Sherbet. Break the mold and own your ritual. Just one stick and 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. Powered by Live Hydra Science, an optimized ratio of electrolytes, essential vitamins and clinically tested nutrients that turn ordinary water into extraordinary hydration. Treat yourself to extraordinary hydration from Liquid IV. Get 20% off your first order of Liquid IV when you go to liquidiv.com and use code legal AF at checkout. That's 20% off your first order with code legalafiquidivity.com we call that in another.

[Unknown Legal Analyst]

Context ouster that that some something some regulation has so occupied the field, the subject matter, that it has ousted all other attempts at regulation. Once they reach that conclusion, then it was easy for them to say that the statute that's in play is the statutes developed by the Wisconsin legislature that allow abortions under certain circumstances up through viability. And they then destroy the argument made by the Sheboygan prosecutor who was standing in for the religious right and their arguments. And they said in conclusion on page 17 of their order, this case is about giving effect to 50 years worth of laws passed by the legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion. The legislature as the people's representatives remains free to change the laws. But the only way to give effect to what the legislature has done, actually done for 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century ban. That is, that shows you elections have consequences. That connectivity between elections and judges sometimes is lost in the electorate and among voters. And you know, sometimes I blame us for not being able to better explain it. When you elect a Donald Trump, even for one narrow reason, he is also responsible for reshaping the face of the federal judiciary by putting on hundreds and hundreds of federal judges through the appellate courts, through the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court will continue to be a right wing MAGA majority for at least the next two decades because of Donald Trump, because he's going to likely get the next two picks when Alito and Thomas leave or otherwise are replaced. And even if we we get back the presidency in 2028, which is likely, the best we can hope for is that Roberts resigns, retires or dies and we get to elevate somebody like a Tanji Brown Jackson into the Chief justice seat and then select a replacement. That's the best we can hope for. I mean, it wouldn't be bad. I would, I would take, if we have to only have one seat, I'll take the Chief justice seat and I'll take Ketanji Brown Jackson in it.

[Unknown Advertiser]

But that's why elections matter and your.

[Unknown Legal Analyst]

State elections matter and your state judges matter and a lot of them run for election. Don't just go, I don't know who any of these people are. We have to learn who these people are. I'll bring them on the show. We'll talk more about them. At the Supreme Court, we were able to rebel and resist against Elon Musk and Donald Trump who tried to step into Wisconsin and buy a Supreme Court seat. The Wisconsin voters rejected that. And the good news is now with the addition of Susan Crawford, the 4 to 3 majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So we can expect rulings like this stays in place until 2028 and hopefully more will be swept in on the coattails of whoever the Democratic nominee for president is at that time. Elections matter. Supreme courts are often in control and they're all, they're often quasi political and often elected. So pay attention to who is on your Supreme Court. And if, when there's a retention vote or a vote for a seat, we need to oppose the most radical members that are running for those seats. It is important. It is going to be the states and has been the states, both the attorneys general and the governors, the state houses and the supreme courts that are going to help reign in Donald Trump through lawsuits, through legislation and through their supreme courts. I'll continue to follow it right here on the Midas Dutch Network and on Legal af. Take a moment slide over to Legal a f the YouTube channel. Hit the subscribe button. That's the way you can vote for this kind of content. So until my next Legal af, I'm Michael Popak.

[Michael Popak]

Can't get your fill of Legal af.

[Unknown Advertiser]

Me neither.

[Michael Popak]

That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for It Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AOFF are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.