Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Judge temporarily blocks Wis. union law"

A left-liberal judge and a left-liberal district attorney have actually conspired here to stop legislation passed by duly elected representatives — and have done so by declaring the legislature’s own rules potentially invalid.

Politicized courts = no rule of law. It is judicial tyranny.

It’s about time to revolt. If we don’t, our country is gone. Simple as that.

****
update: For any who haven’t done so, I recommend listening to hours 2 and 3 from the March 10 “Up Front” broadcast.

According to article IV of the WI Constitution, the rules of the legislature are not answerable to any outside body. Nobody can tell the legislature how to act with respect to its own rules. Rule 93 of the Senate rules, sub 2 (paraphrasing): a notice of a committee meeting is not required other than the posting on the bulletin board.

So. The WI Constitution, senate rules, and the statute itself are absolutely clear on this point. There is no 24-hour rule.

It is amazing that a suit was brought; but most amazing is that the judge ruled the way she did.

Tyranny. And the left is celebrating.

36 Replies to “"Judge temporarily blocks Wis. union law"”

  1. Stephanie says:

    The peasants are revolting. Harry Reid said so.

    Wait, what?

  2. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Lemme take a guess: state-worker contracts are fiscal after all?

  3. Squid says:

    Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin’s open meetings law.

    Lock the doors of the Senate, post the original bill (with all the fiscal elements) and bring it to another vote 24 hours later. I understand that the local pizza place will be happy to deliver to the Capitol while they’re waiting. They can slide the pies under the door or something.

    If the judge and prosecutor can be locked in with the rest, so much the better.

  4. Ernst Schreiber says:

    It’s about time to revolt.

    I’ve thought of late that if one were to examine the list of un-redressed grievances Jefferson included in the Declaration, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to come up with an equivalent modern example for each and every one.

    Of course the problem then becomes what to do about it.

  5. Stephanie says:

    Seen this?

    “The Speaker’s going to have to make a choice: He can cater to the Tea Party element and as [Indiana Republican Rep.] Mike Pence has suggested, pick a fight that will inevitably cause a shutdown on April 8th,” said New York Sen. Charles Schumer. “Or he can abandon the Tea Party in these negotiations and force a consensus among more moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats.”

    The democrats are splitting the republicans not the other way around. This sux big time.

  6. Shaitan says:

    I’ve seen this coming for years. Liberals have needed to stack the courts precisely because they know their policies will eventually lead to collapse of the system. Now that time has come, and the people want to retake their government, but the liberal courts stand in the way.

  7. Jeff G. says:

    Squid: there is no 24-hour rule. See my update.

    This is straight-up tyranny. The left wears costumes — judges, representative, etc. — but they are tyrants, and when the costumes stop fooling people, they simply do what they want.

    The legislature can give 24 and have another vote (after the Dems presumably flee once again). But that’s not the point. The point is that this judge has simply declared new law to reach the end she wanted to reach — and this district attorney filed suit even though he had no grounds.

    Take a good luck. That’s how progressivism has to work.

    I am so angry right now. This is a direct assault on our way of life. If we can’t trust judges to at least pretend they are interpreting law, we have no foundation for our civil society.

  8. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    The democrats are splitting the republicans not the other way around. This sux big time.

    Only if they let them, Stephanie. Oh, wait. It’s the republicans. They’ll probably fall for it. Fuck.

  9. Squid says:

    Well in that case, fuck ’em! If they’re so hell-bent on causing a constitutional crisis, let’s see Walker say “We’re implementing on schedule. Suck it!” to the judge and then we can have the crisis on our terms.

  10. Bob Reed says:

    It seems odd to me that a TRO could be placed on a law that hadn’t formally been entered on the books, but I’m no lawyer…

    And it also seems nefarious that the Dane county DA himself would be the one bringing suit against the legislature.

    Any chance he’s a Democrat? Any chance this is politically motivated? You betcha!

    I say call in the State Police, have them guard the door to the Senate, have a quorom call, vote on the bill and send it to the Assembly immediately for re-vote.

    You want to spice it up a bit? Announce the vote first, and make a point of arresting a few of the former fleebaggers to force them to be availble. Probable cause? Their last few weeks in abstentia…

    But again, I’m not an attorney, nor a policeman, and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express™ lately either.

  11. LBascom says:

    Isn’t the proper thing to do, as lead by the President, to just ignore the judges ruling.

    Keep implementing it Walker, clear up til the Supreme Court rules.

  12. McGehee says:

    It seems odd to me that a TRO could be placed on a law that hadn’t formally been entered on the books, but I’m no lawyer…

    And it also seems nefarious that the Dane county DA himself would be the one bringing suit against the legislature.

    In a court where a theftist proglodyte presides, “standing” is for the little people.

  13. Pablo says:

    Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald tonight released the following message from Chief Clerk Rob Marchant to support his argument the conference committee meeting was properly called.
    Here’s the message:

    There was some discussion today about the notice provided for the legislature’s conference committee. In special session, under Senate Rule 93, no advance notice is required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board. Despite this rule, it was decided to provide a 2 hour notice by posting on the bulletin board. My staff, as a courtesy, emailed a copy of the notice to all legisaltive (sic) offices at 4:10, which gave the impression that the notice may have been slightly less than 2 hours. Either way, the notice appears to have satisfied the requirements of the rules and statutes.

    I thought you might find this information to be useful.

    Thanks.

    Rob

    Link

    Actually, since the Assembly has already passed the original law, the Senate should just tie up a Dem or two and pass it.

  14. Stephanie says:

    I’d install a new bulletin board, one say about 30 feet high and post another notice at the top. Then revote. Problem solved.

    It’s not like the unions haven’t used that tactic before (they have) and it would be some tasty desserts. Not cupcakes.. this would call for a torte. Cherry, maybe.

  15. Ernst Schreiber says:

    According to article IV of the WI Constitution, the rules of the legislature are not answerable to any outside body. Nobody can tell the legislature how to act with respect to its own rules. [….]

    It is amazing that a suit was brought; but most amazing is that the judge ruled the way she did.

    Impeach the judge for exceeding her authority then, pour l’encouragement d’ les autres.

  16. mojo says:

    One hand washes the other. It’s the Chicago Way.

  17. […] despotism update! Jeff notices a little somethin’-somethin’ that would seem to bear: According to article IV of the WI Constitution, the rules of the legislature are not answerable to […]

  18. Stephanie says:

    The judge has set the hearing on her motion for 3/29. Just a few days before the election on April 5 for judges. Not too fucking obvious, eh?

    I think it is time for Walker to send out the layoff notices again. Maybe instead of 1,500, up it to 3,000 or 5,000. That should get the union’s attention. Two can play these fucking games.

  19. Stephanie says:

    If there is a do-over on the law, write the new one so that the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin’s public employees are identical to those of employees of the federal government.

  20. Jeff G. says:

    If there is a do-over, take away the collective bargaining of ALL public sector workers.

    Not doing it hasn’t gotten you any consideration. Do it for equality!

  21. Stephanie says:

    You mean add the cops and firefighters?

    The guys that said ‘that’s a nice bidness, be a shame if something were to happen to it,’ those guys? Twould be a shame if something were to happen to their collective bargaining rights…

  22. Spiny Norman says:

    24-Hour Rule? Rules??? Since when have rules EVER mattered to Democrats?

  23. Ernst Schreiber says:

    When the rules benefit Democrats, they matter.

  24. BJTex says:

    Rules? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ RULES!!!

    Word!

  25. cranky-d says:

    Since this court order is illegal, the governor should ignore it.

  26. Bob Reed says:

    Aside from the tyrannical posture that Jeff pointed out, make no mistake, this ruling is completely political in nature. They know that the court can’t set the rules for the assembly or enforce them. They know that the DA didn’t have standing for this appeal to the court. They know that this will most likely not stand up to a higher court review.

    This is all about “energizing” the union protesters, and the rank and file that may have been flagging a bit, despite the incidents of thuggery over the last few weeks.

    This keeps the issue “active”, and the protest “relevant” for at least a few more weeks; and pumps up the morale of the recall forces trying to get signatures.

    It’s just cheerleading, and a shot in the dark-so to speak.

  27. Squid says:

    As Stephanie noted above: the hearing is set for the week before the judicial election. This has nothing to do with legitimate legal complaints. It’s a taxpayer-funded GOTV campaign.

  28. antillious says:

    Remove collective barganing of all public sector workers. Especially the “nice business you got here” types. What’s the worst that could happen, they stop doing their jobs?

    Seems like they’ve already started doing just that. *Different state, I know, but it’s not exactly a stretch.

  29. Stephanie says:

    More info.

    Van Hollen:

    In a statement on the state’s planned appeal, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen says the Legislature and guv, “not a single Dane County Circuit Court Judge, are responsible for the enactment of laws.”

    Van Hollen said Supreme Court decisions have made clear that judges may not enjoin the secretary of state from publishing a law, the secretary of state cannot refuse to publish an act because of procedural or constitutional concerns, and acts cannot be enjoined simply because a rule of legislative procedure may have been violated.

    “No matter whether individual citizens agree with the substance of the bill or the manner in which it was enacted, I would hope all see the value in ensuring this matter be given the opportunity to work its way expeditiously through the judicial process,” Van Hollen said.

  30. antillious says:

    Kinda OT, has anyone calcualted how much of a WI taxpayer’s $$ ends up in the DNC coffers via public unions? I’d be curious to see what it amounts to. At the very least so you can point to any wavering members from team R. Ask them if they like, as a Republican, writing cheques to the DNC? Cuz that’s what they’re doing.

  31. mojo says:

    They wanna play hardball? Fine.

    Issue layoff notices.

  32. Mr B says:

    Heh.

    “Senate Rule 93, which provides that for special session bills, “no notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board,” was actually authored in 1983 by Democratic State Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison), with current Senator Tim Cullen (D-Janesville) the first co-author. The rule’s Assembly counterpart was also implemented in 1983, and supporters included Madison Representative Midge Miller, mother of current Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona).”

    http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/03/wisconsin-ag-slams-order-promises-appeal/

    Lets see if they reconvene and pass the whole enchilada. Imagine if the fleebaggers flee again. Watching Walkers Twitter is amusing. He’s like “Hey how are you doing? Thanks for bringing new jobs to WI. The kids and I are going to watch a movie tonight.” Meanwhile, the Dems are in full on spaz mode.

  33. newrouter says:

    First, it is not clear that she had the authority to enjoin publication of a bill. There is some Supreme Court precedent holding that a court may not enjoin publication of a bill because of concerns regarding its constitutionality. The idea is that a law is not enacted until it is published and its constitutionality cannot be determined until it’s enactment is complete and someone has been injured by its threatened or actual publication.

    Second, while I don’t know how Judge Sumi concluded otherwise, there is, as I explained here, serious doubt as to whether the duration of notice provisions of the open meeting law applied here. It seems to me that concluding that it did requires construing a legislative rule in a way that seems to – in conjunction with the open meetings law itself – suggest otherwise.

    Third, if it applied, it may well have been complied with. If the legislature can show that twenty four notice was impractical, it may be that the two hour minimum period was complied with or that the notice was so close to two hours so as to raise any violation de minimis.

    Fourth, even if the law applied and was not complied with, invalidation of the action taken is not mandatory. It is far from clear that the balance tips in favor of invalidation given the extraordinary circumstances of this bill.

    Finally, in assessing all of this, it should be noted that this was not a decision on the merits but the granting of a TRO. It was, in effect, Judge Sumi ordering everything to stop until she could more fully consider the matter.

    link

  34. SDN says:

    It’s about time to revolt. If we don’t, our country is gone. Simple as that.

    Jeff, I’ve been saying that here for years. I just wish I didn’t feel quite so much like Cassandra.

  35. guinsPen says:

    I’ve been told there’s a 24-hour shot clock in the TBA.

Comments are closed.