Throughout the history of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wisconsin, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Leader Robin Vos have been very vocal in their opposition to the various attempts by Governor Tony Evers to get the pandemic under control.

And ironically, yesterday as the president announced that he had tested positive for COVID-19, they were joining another lawsuit to halt the governor’s latest extension of the mask mandates. Now, they aren’t using state lawyers to join these suits. They are using third party lawyers and paying out some pretty serious taxpayer money. So much for fiscal conservatism. WTF?

Beyond the fact that I think the use of masks is a good thing…I wonder why Rep. Vos and Sen. Fitzgerald continue to take their case to court. They could have ended the governor’s last mandate and this current extension in thirty minutes…because they have the legal right to call the Assembly and Senate into session and vote to end the mandates. And they have solid solid Republican majorities in both houses. So why don’t they do it? Because when the political chips are down they don’t have the spine to actually act on their ‘beliefs’ and are willing to let someone else do the actual work.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos filed a brief on behalf of the state Legislature in support of a lawsuit brought by the conservative legal firm Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty that argues Evers overstepped his authority by issuing a new public health emergency over the same pandemic.

The lawsuit also seeks to immediately block Evers’ indoor mask mandate, which was issued under the health emergency Republicans say was issued illegally.

Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature could convene at any time and vote to cancel the health emergency, and the mask mandate, but have chosen not to ahead of an election during which some members may become more vulnerable by taking such a vote.

Instead, the legislative leaders are paying private attorneys at taxpayer expense to accomplish the same goal.

emphasis mine

What a bunch of lame chicken scratching…

And those of you who have Sen. Fitzgerald on your ballot in November for the WI 5th Congressional District…if you want someone who will do nothing in Washington except collect his paycheck…he’s your guy!

14 Responses to Vos And Fitzgerald Confirm That They Are Spineless i.e. Masks

  1. richard lesiak says:

    What can we do to find out how much money is being spent and to who.

  2. Nemo says:

    I’m beginning to understand your mask fetish. A perspective I came across in The New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”, but went on to state

    “It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask.”

    I prefer the “data and education” path myself, but if you insist on carrying a rabbit’s foot to ward off evil, that’s fine. Just don’t force me to do it. It can be annoying and pisses off the rabbits.

    • Ed Heinzelman says:

      thank goodness you are all right. I was concerned that your lack of attention lately might indicate that you were under medical care for the coronavirus. as for masks…I did notice that the president and his entire entourage were wearing them when he was transported to Walter Reed and then again when he returned to the White House. My only concern about masks in this post around Rep. Vos and Sen. Fitzgerald is their gutless approach to mask wearing. Go to session and rescind the governor’s mandate…would take them 15 minutes. They have the legal authority to do so. Stop wasting my tax money on lawsuits. But they are too chickenshit to do so.

      • Nemo says:

        Ed, I fear you missed the point of my comment. I was stating that masks are not about efficacy, or logic, or science, but about perception, fear, and anxiety. These are the political “big guns” of those that would trade everyone else’s freedom for small amounts of personal safety. That leaves the GOP with a choice. They can fight the illegal edicts in the court of politics or a court of law. The court of law is preferable for two reasons. Precedents underscored there may dissuade similar decrees by any future tyrant in training and, during a time of fear and loathing, the political optics are better.

        Thanks for your concern, hope you remain well, too.

  3. nonquixote says:

    Ed,

    Unfortunately your post gets trolled once again to distract from the main point you very clearly stated, which is that the gerrymandered majority state legislative leadership could overturn Governor Evers emergency health related orders by going into session and reversing the order and don’t appear to be inclined to use their gerrymandered position to act, but are handing over legislative authority to the judicial branch whom GOP legislators on a wider scale have historically whined about the need to prevent liberal justices from legislating from the judicial bench.

    Similarly, during Walker’s administration, rule making authority was removed from other state agencies and departments, for example the DNR, and claimed by the
    executive and legislative branches. Legislative rule-making was removed to the governor then through the DOA for approval before any new rule-making could even begin to be discussed.

    I agree with your initial assessment of the state legislative “leadership,” shirking their role in the process before us clearly stated in your post.

    Taxpayer money being funneled to fund private attorneys should be cause for these leaders to be removed from office immediately, but remember how they had no hesitation to hold a lame-duck session to strip executive power away from the incoming governor and the incoming attorney general in December 2018, after the GOP lost the two top political state races that could not be so easily manipulated by the current GOP gerrymandered state legislative districts.

    And St. Croix County Circuit Judge R. Michael Waterman, if I have the news story (Oct 5) correct is asking the same question of the plaintiffs yesterday, when you (the legislators) have the power to act on this, why are you bringing the question to the courts?

    So Wisconsinites can see clearly that the state GOP gerrymandered majority can be accused of abusing power in two ways, actively usurping it and also through refusing to exercise the power they have usurped. Neither of which can be demonstrated to further the needs of the state or her people, but merely to hold power over the state. We are essentially victims of the abusers.

  4. geo says:

    Did you read the article or just the paragraph that supports you personal beliefs? Even the authors stated in a follow up letter “We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.” What they are saying is masks alone do not protect healthcare workers, but are part of a regime which includes handwashing, face shields, and other PPE.

    • Nemo says:

      No, what they stated clearly is, “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” What they are saying is that evidence from 14 RTC studies found by the CDC have concluded that masks and hand washing “did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza”. You can put your faith in editor’s notes designed to insure grants in the future or limit cocktail party shunning, or you can look to the science with an open mind. Totems and talismans or truth, the choice is yours, but be sure to look behind you before you throw salt over your shoulder. That stuff burns if you get it in your eyes.

  5. geo says:

    So your saying they didn’t say what I copied from the authors letter? Then who did write that letter?

    • Nemo says:

      I’m saying that unsubstantiated opinions as proof of efficacy tend not to pass muster, but then the editor’s note didn’t reference efficacy did it?

      Geo, are you suggesting that the article did not state, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”? On what grounds are you rejecting the 14 RTC studies?

  6. geo says:

    And because they knew people who have no idea as to how to read a scientific article would glom on to the tiny tid-bit that reinforced their faulty logic, the authors went on to explain; “We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

    Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H.
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

    Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H.
    Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA

    Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.
    Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

    Since publication of their article, the authors report no further potential conflict of interest.

    This letter was published on June 3, 2020, at NEJM.org.

    8 References
    1.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    2.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    3.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    4.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    5.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    6.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    7.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    8.

    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    . opens in new tab
    Close Letters

    Article
    More aboutVIRAL INFECTIONSHEALTH CARE DELIVERYPUBLIC HEALTHMEDICAL PRACTICE, TRAINING, AND EDUCATIONPRIMARY CARE/​HOSPITALIST/​CLINICAL PRACTICE
    May 21, 2020
    N Engl J Med 2020; 382:e63
    DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372
    Related Articles

    CORRESPONDENCEJUL 9, 2020
    Universal Masking in the Covid-19 Era
    . opens in new tab
    PHYSICIAN JOBSOCTOBER 13, 2020
    Loma Linda, California
    Infectious Disease
    Academic Pediatric Infectious Disease Opportunity in Southern California
    Georgia
    Infectious Disease
    EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY IN ATLANTA SUBURB FOR BC/BE PHYSICIAN
    Vermont
    Primary Care
    PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN WANTED!!
    Farmington, Connecticut
    Primary Care
    Primary Care Physician | Family Practice – ProHealth Physicians
    Sunbury, Pennsylvania
    Primary Care
    Primary Care Physician
    Bronx, New York
    Primary Care
    Physician – Primary Care – Gotham Health, Belvis – Bronx, New York

    More Perspectives
    PERSPECTIVE OCT 7, 2020
    Lessons We’ve Learned — Covid-19 and the Undocumented Latinx Community
    K.R. Page and A. Flores-Miller
    PERSPECTIVE OCT 7, 2020
    The Stress of Bayesian Medicine — Uncomfortable Uncertainty in the Face of Covid-19
    J.N. Rosenquist
    PERSPECTIVE OCT 7, 2020
    Covid-19, Ebola, and HIV — Leveraging Lessons to Maximize Impact
    C. Celum and Others

    • Nemo says:

      Your links are lacking, unless your main argument is “. opens in new tab”. I had a free second and am a google-fu master so I found your cites. All the studies you depend upon are mechanistic. Geo, I’m somewhat surprised that someone with your obvious gifts would site theory over practice in medicine. In theory, Thalidomide is good for treatment of nausea in pregnant women. In practice, not so much.

      • geo says:

        Just meant to post the authors letter, everything after This letter was published on June 3, 2020, at NEJM.org, I added erroneously.

Leave a Reply to Ed Heinzelman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.