Ok, first, if the legislation is not illegal or unconstitutional, then legally they can do it. But I agree that doesn't answer the questions you pose as to whether it's "horrible" or "wrong."
I posted earlier I think the legislation is both short-sighted and unwise (certainly from a political sense) because control of legislatures and governors offices always changes, and sooner or later the Republicans may be on a position where they hold the governor's office and Dems hold the legislature, and at that point I bet they're going to wish the governor still had those powers. Furthermore, why give Dems running for the legislature something to run on. But as I said earlier, the R's in Wisconsin have apparently decided to take short term gain at the expense of possible long term loss. That's their gamble, not mine. It's not the way I would have gone.
Does that make it "horrible" or "wrong?" I don't think it's very smart. Whether it turns out to be "wrong," politically, largely depends upon the outcome of future elections in Wisconsin, and I have no idea what will happen there.
Is it "wrong" morally? From the standards of common decency or fairness, sure, probably. From the standards of politics, not likely.
