The legislative power, "the power to adopt generally applicable rules of conduct governing future actions by private persons-the power to 'prescrib[e] the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated,' or the power to 'prescribe general rules for the government of society,'" Gundy, 588 U.S. at 153 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) (citations omitted) (alteration in original), belongs to the legislature alone. Wis. Const, art. IV, § 1 ("The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly."); see also id. art. IV, § 22 (creating one exception); Becker v. Dane Cnty., 2022 WI 63, ¶¶76, 113-16, 403 Wis.2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting).

Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI 63, 403 Wis.2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390. ¶6 The petitioners argue two grounds for reconsideration.

Justice Dallet's concurrence, ¶97. It points to Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI 63, ¶33, 403 Wis. 2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390. But the constitutional analysis cited was joined by only three justices and is not an opinion of the court.

For that reason, I provide a thorough overview of the case. See generally Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI 63, ¶89, 403 Wis. 2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting) ("It is ... customary for any judicial opinion to relay the facts of the case[.]"), recons. mot. filed. ¶38 This tragedy started when Zingsheim contracted COVID-19 in September 2021.

See generally Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI 63, ¶89, 403 Wis.2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting) ("It is . . . customary for any judicial opinion to relay the facts of the case[.]"), recons. mot. filed.

See e.g., Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI 63, ¶¶9-22, 403 Wis.2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390 (interpreting the meaning of "reasonable and necessary" in Wis.Stat. § 252.03); Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 2022 WI 57, ¶¶13-25, 403 Wis.2d 1, 976 N.W.2d 263 (lead op.) (interpreting the meaning of "prevails in whole or in substantial part" in Wis.Stat. § 19.37(2)(a)); State v. Perez, 2001 WI 79, ¶¶15-60, 244 Wis.2d 582, 628 N.W.2d 820 (interpreting the meaning of "a crime involving the use of the dangerous weapon" in Wis.Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b)).

Contrary to the majority's position, "[i]t is . . . customary for any judicial opinion to relay the facts of the case"-sometimes even when the relevance of particular facts is debatable.Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI 63, 589, 403 Wis.2d 424, 977 N.W.2d 390 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting). Rector's crimes illustrate why the State's proffered interpretation is consistent with the statutory purpose of protecting the public-particularly children.

We must aspire to be better models of respectful dialogue to preserve the public's confidence on which this court's legitimacy relies." Becker v. Dane County, 2022 WI __, ¶44, __ Wis.2d __, __ N.W.2d __ (Karofsky, J.). Although Justice Jill J. Karofsky recently complained about the tone of a dissent she deemed too harsh (joined by Justice Hagedorn, who does not join this footnote), she nevertheless joins a dissent that accuses her colleagues of "blithely and erroneously seek[ing] to sow distrust in the administration of our elections and through its faulty analysis erect[ing] yet another barrier for voters[.]" Dissent, ¶205.