cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 02:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
I'm not sure why Walker doesn't listen to you. ROTF
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2011 04:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
there is no reason to wait, just do it now. If the law is passed again with the dems around presumably the legal objection to the law goes away. I said last week that Walker should repass the bill. I was once again correct, Walker wasted a week for no good reason.


Well that should be a great aid to getting all those senators out of office.

By the way in Miami-Dade county with 2.5 millions citizens the County May0r had just been kicked out of office by recall and by 80 percents of the votes.

When you get your citizens up in arms you can indeed end up being recall.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2011 08:22 pm
Here is a copy of Sumi's ruling granting the restraining order.
Sumi ruling
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2011 09:17 pm
Appeals court kicks case to State Supreme Court

Quote:
Madison — The fight over a new collective bargaining law now sits squarely before the state Supreme Courts, less than two weeks before Justice David Prosser faces re-election.

An appeals panel said Thursday the high court should take up the case because of conflicting past decisions.


Prosser's election will be the first test for Wisconsin to see how they really feel about this issue. I predict Prosser will lose his seat on the court unless he rules against the new law which is unlikely given his temperament on the court.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2011 06:12 pm
And in case you thought this couldn't get any stranger..

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html
Quote:
Madison - In a stunning twist, controversial legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published on Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, sparking a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.


When you don't like a court's ruling, I guess you can just try to ignore it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2011 07:32 pm
@parados,
No wonder that the conservatives want less government intrusion; they want to make all the decisions whether it's illegal or not! LOL
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 06:59 am
The news from Wisconsin goes from bad to worse:


I just bought two books by the University of Wisconsin historian William Cronon: "Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England" and "Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West."

A week ago, I had never heard of Cronon. This is embarrassing, since it doesn't take much digging around to discover that he is one of the most highly regarded historians in the United States (not to mention president-elect of the American Historical Association).

But that was before Cronon's fascinating opinion piece in Monday's New York Times detailing how Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's political agenda flies in the face of "civic traditions that for more than a century have been among the most celebrated achievements not just of their state, but of their own party as well." A devastating new broadside in the battle for Wisconsin, Cronon's Op-Ed deservedly went viral.

But in today's political climate, there are consequences for taking a stand. As surely nearly everyone who has been following developments in Wisconsin already knows, the Republican Party of Wisconsin has filed an open records request demanding access to any emails Cronon has sent or received since Jan. 1 containing the search terms "Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell."

The obvious goal is to find something damaging or embarrassing to Cronon -- although judging by Cronon's account, smoking guns seem unlikely to be lying around in plain sight. (Eight of the names referenced in the request belong to the eight Republican state senators targeted by Democrats for recall.)

I can't do a better, more eloquent or more profound job of summarizing the issues at stake than Cronon himself does in a lengthy blog post that the professor posted Thursday night. Everyone should read it. Nor do I want to get bogged down in a discussion of whether the Wisconsin GOP's tactics should be properly characterized as a McCarthyite attack on academic freedom. I believe they should be, but I want to make a larger point.

Despite following events in Wisconsin fairly closely, before Cronon's post about the open records request started rocketing around Twitter and Facebook late last night, I hadn't realized that Cronon had published another, even more interesting post two weeks earlier, "Who's Really Behind Recent Republican Legislation in Wisconsin and Elsewhere? (Hint: It Didn't Start Here)."

In that post, as part of his effort to understand the historical roots of the nationally coordinated state-level legislative attack on unions, Cronon focused his spotlight on a relatively under-the-radar group called the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The most important group, I'm pretty sure, is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which was founded in 1973 by Henry Hyde, Lou Barnett, and (surprise, surprise) Paul Weyrich. Its goal for the past forty years has been to draft "model bills" that conservative legislators can introduce in the 50 states. Its website claims that in each legislative cycle, its members introduce 1000 pieces of legislation based on its work, and claims that roughly 18 percent of these bills are enacted into law. (Among them was the controversial 2010 anti-immigrant law in Arizona.)

Cronon surmises that his efforts to highlight the role of ALEC precipitated the Republican open records response. I have no way to judge whether that is true. But what I do know is that the Republican effort to gain access to Cronon's university emails has resulted in bringing far more attention to Cronon and to ALEC than would otherwise have been the case.

And that gives me hope. In an earlier post today, I quoted another blogger noting how humiliating it was that progressives didn't even realize that efforts to restrict striking workers from eligibility for food stamp programs dated all the way back to 1981. We've been asleep on the job. But if there's one good thing to come out of the aggressive ultra-conservative agenda so visible since the 2010 midterm elections -- with special attention to events in Wisconsin -- it is that we are all paying more attention than ever to what's been going on in this country for the last 30 years. It's not just that issues like "collective bargaining" are suddenly part of mainstream debate. We are also looking harder at the laws that are getting passed and more closely examining the institutions -- like ALEC -- that have been so instrumental in moving reactionary agendas forward. By attacking William Cronon, the Republican Party of Wisconsin has insured that his every future utterance will command a mass audience -- not just of his fellow historians, who esteem him so highly -- but of everyone who cares about the future of this country.

If good ideas are ever to drive out bad, both need more exposure. And that's why I just bought two of Cronon's books. We can't shape the future without understanding the past. The potency of Cronon's current involvement in the hottest political struggle of the day is all the proof I need that my own understanding of how the world works will benefit from more exposure to his work -- whether manifested in a blog post, New York Times Op-Ed, or book. What better response could there be to an attack on academic freedom than to spread that academic's ideas as widely as possible?

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21. More: Andrew Leonard
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 06:03 pm
@plainoldme,
Did you buy the book as you were instructed in your source of prefabricated opinions?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 10:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

And in case you thought this couldn't get any stranger..

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html
Quote:
Madison - In a stunning twist, controversial legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published on Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, sparking a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.


When you don't like a court's ruling, I guess you can just try to ignore it.


Anyone who is interested can follow some tweets live-blogging today's hearing on this matter:

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23openmtgs

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2011 10:32 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Thanks Cyc..

Interesting stuff..
Fitzgerald told them to publish. He is party to original suit so might find himself sanctioned before this is over imo.

Lafollete not being correctly represented by AG and should have own atty?
Quote:
Sumi: at this point interests have so greatly diverged that I believe La Follette entitled to indep. counsel.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 04:37 am
Wisconsin Judge Halts Further Implementation Of Union Law

TODD RICHMOND 03/29/11 09:44 PM ET

reddit
stumble MADISON, Wis. — The showdown over Wisconsin's explosive union bargaining law shifted from the Statehouse back to the courthouse on Tuesday, but it remained unclear when or even whether the measure would take effect.

Republican lawmakers pushed through passage of the law earlier this month despite massive protests that drew up to 85,000 people to the state Capitol and a boycott by Democratic state senators. Opponents immediately filed a series of lawsuits that resulted in further chaos that might not end until the state Supreme Court weighs in.

That appeared even more likely after a hearing on Tuesday, when a Dane County judge again ordered the state to put the law on hold while she considers a broader challenge to its legality. She chastised state officials for ignoring her earlier order to halt the law's publication.

"Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of (the law) was enjoined," Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said during a hearing. "That is what I now want to make crystal clear."

Sumi is set to hear additional arguments Friday on the larger question of whether GOP legislative leaders violated the state's open meetings law during debate on the measure. She also is considering Republican claims that the law technically took effect last weekend after a state agency unexpectedly published it online.

Whether she decides it did or didn't become law on Saturday, the measure's legitimacy will likely be decided by the state Supreme Court, which is already considering whether to take up an appeals court's request to hear the case.

The back and forth amplified the often angry debate between new Gov. Scott Walker, his Republican allies in the Legislature and the state's public sector unions.

Walker and the GOP have aggressively pushed forward their effort to remove the bargaining rights of state workers, using a surprise parliamentary maneuver to break a weeks-long stalemate to get it passed and then finding another route to publish the law after Sumi's order blocked the secretary of state from doing so.

State Department of Justice spokesman Steve Means said the agency continues to believe the law was properly published and is in effect.

Story continues below
AdvertisementWisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, Walker's top aide, issued a statement saying the agency will evaluate the judge's order.

Earlier this month Sumi issued an emergency injunction in the case that blocked Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law. Republican leaders sidestepped the order, convincing the Legislative Reference Bureau, another state agency, to post the law on its website on Friday. The GOP declared that move amounted to publication and said the law would take effect Saturday.

Dane County Democratic District Attorney Ismael Ozanne – the plaintiff in the lawsuit heard Tuesday – argued the reference bureau can't publish a law without a date from the secretary of state. Attorneys for the state Department of Justice, which is representing the Republicans, argued the case means nothing because legislators are immune from civil lawsuits and the law is in effect.

The district attorney asked Sumi to declare that the law had not been published, but she refused to rule, saying she wanted to hear more testimony. But she issued the new restraining order, warning anyone who violates this one will face sanctions.

"Wisconsin working families hope that (Gov.) Scott Walker and his Republican allies in the legislature will finally begin to respect our state's judicial process and reverse any damage they've done to the working families of our state, Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said in a statement.

Justice Department attorneys maintain Sumi has no authority to intervene in the legislative process. And Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said in a statement that once again Sumi has improperly injected herself into the legislative process.

"Her action today again flies in the face of the separation of powers between the three branches of government," Fitzgerald said.

The law has been a flashpoint of controversy since Walker introduced it in February.

The measure requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also strips away their rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages. Walker, who wrote the law, insists the measure is necessary to help close the state's budget deficit. But Democrats see the law as a political move to cripple unions, who are traditionally among their strongest campaign supporters.

Tens of thousands of people staged almost non-stop demonstrations at the state Capitol for nearly three weeks and Senate Democrats fled the state for Illinois to block a vote in that chamber.

Republicans who control the Legislature ended the stalemate by removing what they said were the fiscal elements from the plan on March 9, allowing the Senate to vote without a quorum. The Assembly passed the measure the next day and Walker signed the measure into law on March 11.

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, a Democrat, and several unions have filed lawsuits challenging the Senate vote, arguing the final law still contains fiscal components. Those lawsuits are still pending.

Scott Walker Wisconsin Protests Most Popular MADISON, Wis. — The showdown over Wisconsin's explosive union bargaining law shifted from the Statehouse back to the courthouse on Tuesday, but it remained unclear when or even whether the measu... MADISON, Wis. — The showdown over Wisconsin's explosive union bargaining law shifted from the Statehouse back to the courthouse on Tuesday, but it remained unclear when or even whether the measu...



..
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 07:28 am
Quote:
But outside the courtroom, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect.

The statement by Means - the executive assistant to Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen - shocked Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha).

"It's just startling that the attorney general believes you should not follow court orders anymore," he said.

In a later statement, Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said: "We don't believe that the court can enjoin non-parties. Whether the Department of Administration or other state officers choose to comply with any direction issued by Judge Sumi is up to them."

Do these guys really think they can ignore court rulings and get away with it?

They could face contempt of court charges, both civil and criminal.
If attorneys, they could and probably should lose their law licenses.
As public officials they probably should be removed from office for violating the law.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 09:33 am
@parados,
Isn't it a wonder that conservatives will ignore US laws to push their agenda, and they're the party who talks big about law and order; especially in other countries where we spend our treasure to bring peace and order.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 09:35 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
But outside the courtroom, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect.

The statement by Means - the executive assistant to Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen - shocked Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha).

"It's just startling that the attorney general believes you should not follow court orders anymore," he said.

In a later statement, Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said: "We don't believe that the court can enjoin non-parties. Whether the Department of Administration or other state officers choose to comply with any direction issued by Judge Sumi is up to them."

Do these guys really think they can ignore court rulings and get away with it?

They could face contempt of court charges, both civil and criminal.
If attorneys, they could and probably should lose their law licenses.
As public officials they probably should be removed from office for violating the law.



They are seriously getting into wacky territory now, and from what I can tell, it's not going over well in their state.

Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 12:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't get what they're saying. Who/what is a non-party? And a non-party to what? The bill that was signed into law?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 12:02 pm
@JPB,
The non-party would be those that aren't specifically named in the law suit challenging the law under the open meetings provision of the law.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 12:03 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I don't get what they're saying. Who/what is a non-party? And a non-party to what? The bill that was signed into law?


I wish I could help but I don't really understand what they are saying either. I think it boils down to them stating "We just don't care what you say, we're going to proceed however we want."

I simply cannot see that being a winning long-term strategy.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 12:09 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The die-hard conservatives will stick with it until their party fades away. Most republicans are moderates, not extremists as found in WI and elsewhere in the midwest.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 12:14 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

The non-party would be those that aren't specifically named in the law suit challenging the law under the open meetings provision of the law.


Ah, thanks. I think she clarified herself. She disagrees.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2011 12:16 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
He is saying they don't believe the court can enforce a restraining order against anyone not named in a law suit.

party to the lawsuit.. Jones v Brown - Jones and Brown would be the parties.

But let's say Brown runs company X and the court says Brown and company X can't do something. If Black works for company X can he do the thing that Brown and company X weren't supposed to do? Black would be a non party to the lawsuit but if he acts for company X is he allowed to do that as a non-party to the suit

The issue here is the State government is defending a state official. The court said the official couldn't do something and it was not to be done. Other officials working for the state did the thing the one official was told not to do. Now they are trying to argue that doesn't violate the order from the judge.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 10:49:32