I’m not a legal expert — nor have I read the decision — but if I had to venture a guess, the Wisconsin justices most likely outlined their reasoning based on a number of key facts, most strikingly, that Judge Sumi’s initial ruling was dishonest, partisan, and in no way aligned with any possible reading of applicable law or precedent, largely because she’s a judicial disgrace who should be reprimanded

On the one hand, we’re supposed to believe that anyone can read and understand the Constitution — meaning, we don’t need a special priesthood to interpret the thing (and of course, this is true, assuming a base level of reading comprehension and intelligence, and assuming one can get past the fact that the document itself is like, over a hundred years old!); and yet at the same time, the Federalist

Sure. But that’s only because he’s a lock for re-election — so weak and wrong on the issues is the field challenging him. I know this because conservative David Frum tells me so. And honestly, has there ever been a more astute student of reading political trends than David Frum? Incidentally, I forget: who’s the “No Labels” candidate for 2012? Trump? Bloomberg? Either way, I can’t wait!

Dana Milbank, Washington Post: There was one candidate who rose above the usual positioning, though she stood a head shorter than the six men on the stage. Eleven minutes into the debate, Michele Bachmann stole the show, and she didn’t return it in the subsequent hour and 49 minutes. Based on Monday night alone, Bachmann was the one who emerged as the anti-Romney from the otherwise drab field. That is

Sure, the “shovel-ready jobs weren’t as shovel ready” as Obama’d thought [cue: uproarious laughter] — and sure, the Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 until just this year, and so were in control of spending — while their “regulatory” policies, begun by and under President Bill Clinton, were turning an experiment in social engineering and Democrat plunder into a toxic housing bubble that eventually would push banks to make bad loans,