ATTACKING WOMEN IS A NO-LOSE PROPOSITION FOR MISSOURI MAGA CREEPS

AG Andrew Bailey disgraced himself at the Supreme Court over abortion. He could not care less.

Atty. Gen. Andrew Bailey was annihilated by the Missouri Supreme Court last week, drawing a rare unanimous defeat in a high-profile case and a verbal rebuke to boot.

And it didn’t put a hitch in his giddy-up.

The judges slammed Bailey in a 6-0 decision that ended his attempt to hold up a 2024 ballot measure that would restore abortion rights to Missouri women. Bailey had illegally attempted to bury the measure over a claim that was absurd even for his narrow mind.

Writing for the court, Judge Paul C. Wilson could not have been clearer.

“The Attorney General’s refusal to perform the plain, unequivocal, and ministerial duty of approving those summaries (and informing the Auditor he has done so) cannot be justified.”

The judge added that Bailey cost sponsors of the pro-choice measure at least 100 days they should have had to collect signatures. Don’t be surprised if Bailey quotes that on his campaign website.

Bailey was appointed attorney general by Gov. Mike Parson last fall after the position became vacated with the U.S. Senate election of the actor formerly known as Eric Schmitt. Bailey was the legal counsel who convinced Parson to disgrace himself nationally with a failed attempt to prosecute a Post-Dispatch reporter for the crime of electronically embarrassing a governor.

Bailey faces a formidable Republican primary opponent next year in MAGA zealot Wil Scharf, policy director and basement decorator for disgraced former Gov. Eric Greitens. (Correction: Scharf was not the basement decorator).

The primary struggle between Bailey and Scharf figures to present one of the most gripping races to the bottom in state history. First one to compare Trump to Jesus wins. As to the reproductive freedom of Missouri women, it will be a competition to show who cares least about their health and who most fervently disrespects their bodies and religious freedom.

Against that backdrop, no position can appear too brainless for Andrew Bailey. That’s why he was perfectly content to go to war with a fellow Republican, state Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, with his illegal attempt to kill the pro-choice ballot initiative.

Like Bailey, Fitzpatrick is anti-abortion. Unlike Bailey, Fitzpatrick has integrity. Also unlike Bailey, it is Fitzpatrick’s job to put a fiscal note on the anticipated costs of any ballot measure.

Fitzpatrick did his job and came up with an estimated cost of $51,000. And as the judge said, Bailey had “the plain, unequivocal, and ministerial duty of approving those summaries (and informing the Auditor he has done so).”

Ah, but that judge doesn’t speak MAGA. What Bailey did, in an act of pure mendacity, was to freeze action on the measure after declaring – get this – that the real cost of restoring abortion rights to Missouri women ranged somewhere between $12.5 billion and $51 billion. With a “B.”

If stupidity was a capital crime, Bailey might be a candidate for death row. But, alas, it is not. In fact, deep diving to this level of shamelessness is what one noted insurrectionist senator defines as manhood.

So, it should come as no surprise that Bailey was not humiliated in the slightest by his humiliation at the hands of Missouri’s highest court. In his public response to the decision, he chose to remind the unanimous judges that they got it wrong:

“We disagree with the Court’s decision, as we believe Missourians deserve to know how much this amendment would cost the state, but we will respect the Court’s order,” Bailey spokesperson Madeline Sieren said in an email, the Kansas City Star reported.

There’s an old adage for how lawyers should respond to losing a Supreme Court decision unanimously: “When you’re shut out, shut up.” (OK, that might not be an old adage, but only because butt-kickings like the one administered to Bailey are so rare).

Still, the best part of Bailey’s statement was his pious declaration that “we will respect the Court’s order.” Really? Perhaps Bailey missed this class in law school, but someone needs to tell him that the state Supreme Court is the final word on this sort of state matter.

What other options might have been available to Bailey other than “respect the Court’s order?” Illegal defiance? Proclaiming that the storm has arrived and seizing the state Capitol?

In true MAGA style, Bailey wanted to make it clear to everyone that complying with the Supreme Court ruling was his decision, not anyone else’s. No unelected judges are going to push around our unelected attorney general.

Especially when the rights of women are involved.