Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

@Cycloptichorn,

Your data is the actually vote by the board so is more up to date

0 Replies

Wisconsin high court upholds collective bargaining law

Quote:

Wisconsin's top court Tuesday reinstated a contentious law that curbs the collective bargaining rights of most state employees.
The state's Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, set aside a ruling by a lower court judge who had placed a permanent injunction against the law. The court ruled the state Legislature did not violate the state's constitution when it passed the legislation.
"The Supreme Court's ruling provides our state the opportunity to move forward together and focus on getting Wisconsin working again," Gov. Scott Walker said in a statement.
The Wisconsin AFL-CIO criticized the ruling.
"The inability of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to separate partisan politics from the well-being of Wisconsinites is the latest indication that citizens do not have a voice in this state," it said in a statement. "And the only way for Wisconsinites to repair that voice is to take back the Senate this summer, stop Walker's unbridled assault on working people and take back the statehouse in 2012."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/14/wisconsin.collective.bargaining/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision to reinstate the collective bargaining law?

Yes (70%)

No (30%)

Total Responses: 11698

http://www.jsonline.com/polls/123861119.html?results=y

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This puts WI Republicans in a tough spot. If they try to re-pass the bill, it will be just that much worse for the Senators who are now facing recall elections, and for Walker, who is going to be facing the same thing in just a few months. If they DON'T re-pass the bill, Republicans are likely to see this as a defeat, which could seriously harm their support for the party moving forward.

Any bets on what they'll do?

Cycloptichorn

Well it looks like they simply waited until the judicial process was completed in today's ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It appears to have worked very well for them - and for the people of Wisconsin.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

The judicial process was not a judicial process.

Read the ruling but pay attention to the dissent.
http://media.jsonline.com/documents/supreme-061411.pdf

The court ruled without looking at any of the arguments in the ruling by Sumi. They heard 6 hours of testimony when they heard arguments to take the case. They had no testimony or documents after that.

The dissenters in the case argue that they were never given the facts to decide the case. It was a rush to judgment by the majority with made up facts never presented to the court.

The dissent even points out the majority has factual errors in its ruling when it makes claims about the appeal.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

This ruling is a victory for the people of Wisconsin and all Americans nationwide.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

You better read the ruling squirt.

What this ruling means is that any legislature can pass any law they want and no court will stop them.

That means a Democratic legislature could possibly pass laws to outlaw the GOP if you think this ruling is the victory you claim it is.

2 Replies

@parados,

You had better accept the reality parasite.
Liberal government employee unions are on the way out in this country.

0 Replies

I'd wait for the avalanche of suits coming against the law, which can be filed now that it's going into effect, and the recall elections, which are going to change the political makeup of the legislature, if I were you, H2.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wait all you want, I'm still waiting on Obama to mature and be presidential... still waiting.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The judicial process was not a judicial process.

Read the ruling but pay attention to the dissent.
http://media.jsonline.com/documents/supreme-061411.pdf

The court ruled without looking at any of the arguments in the ruling by Sumi. They heard 6 hours of testimony when they heard arguments to take the case. They had no testimony or documents after that.

The dissenters in the case argue that they were never given the facts to decide the case. It was a rush to judgment by the majority with made up facts never presented to the court.

The dissent even points out the majority has factual errors in its ruling when it makes claims about the appeal.

The court ruled, in accordance with cited precedent that the circuit court had exceeded its mandate and violated bith the Wisconsin constitution with respect to the separation of legislative powers in the state. It further responded to claims of violation of the duly constituted procedures established by the legilature for the constitutionally reqiuired publications of law, rejecting the absurd claim that they constitutes an amendment to the state constitution. Finally it noted that there was indeed posted notice of the meetings in question, and that they were physically open to the press, refusing to delve further into an issue which rested on an argument already deemed to be without merit. That was enought for me.

It was indeed a judicial process that restored the role of the legislature in a situation that involved extra constitutional behavior by a part of the legislature intended to stop the functioning of the state government and, later separate action to threaten public order and intimidate the government through mob demonstrations and physical occupation of the state capitol.

The Democrat legislators who fled the state instead of making arguments in the Senate and voting on the draft legislation before it, as it was their constitutionally prescribed duty to do, violated the laws and constitutional requirements of Wisconsin far more than the relatively reivial arguments offered in the allegation that the prior bulletin board notice and physically open doors at the meetings in question somehow constituted a violation of a law that required no more than that.

The issue here involved the integrity of the government of Wisconsin and its ability to limit the ability of private corporations (public employee labor unions) to forcibly extract money from the people of the state and use sympathertic legislators in their pay to prevent the constitutionally prescribed functions of government. The outcome was a victory for the state and the people.

Your shrill indignation is rather misplaced.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The issue here involved the integrity of the government of Wisconsin

The issue was whether the legislature had to follow the law in passing legislation. There was nothing in the case about the content of the law.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

What this ruling means is that any legislature can pass any law they want and no court will stop them.

That means a Democratic legislature could possibly pass laws to outlaw the GOP if you think this ruling is the victory you claim it is.

That would be an entertaining outcome. State by state, one party or another outlawed.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I'll wait until the suit is settled before deciding whether it was legal or not.

Don't forget, Reagan fired the air controllers, and that stuck.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The issue here involved the integrity of the government of Wisconsin

The issue was whether the legislature had to follow the law in passing legislation. There was nothing in the case about the content of the law.

You are just playing with words in an attempt to defend the indefensible. The State Supreme court did indeed explicitly (see pp 3 &4) affirm that the legislature complied with its law in passing the legislation in question. It also soundly rejected the specious argument that the public meeting law was itself an amendment to the state constitution - a rather self-evident fact.

Interesting that you whine much more in defeat than do those you have criticized at such tedious length.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

LOL.. What?

Why would the court need to argue that a law was not part of the Constitution if the law was followed?

The court never mentions an actual statute on pages 3 & 4 so I have no idea what you are talking about there.

The court argues that the law is not part of the Constitution so they can make the argument that they can't apply that law to the Legislature. They did not affirm that the legislature complied with the law. They avoided the question completely.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The court argues that the law is not part of the Constitution so they can make the argument that they can't apply that law to the Legislature. They did not affirm that the legislature complied with the law. They avoided the question completely.

Correct, and the key statements are on p9, not 3 or 4 as I wrote. The Court also affirmed that the legistature complied with the specified constitutional requirements pertaining to the meeting in question of the conference committee (i.e.prior notice and open doors at the meeting). The court's argument was essentially that legislation is the constitutionally mandated function of the legislature and that it complied with all of the constitutionally mandated requirements for the enactment of legislation. Looks good to me.

Even in our Federal government, nearly all laws enacted by the Congress are held to mot apply to the Congress itself - it is governed only by the constitution and related precedent.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The court said they conformed with the Constitutional requirements and ignored the question of whether the legislature can impose stricter requirements and ask the courts to enforce those requirements.

Your argument is that Congress can pass laws to not exempt themselves and then simply ignore the law and exempt themselves in violation of the law they passed simply because they are Congress. Well, you might be able to make a tortured legal argument, I would hope you don't support that politically.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Your argument is that Congress can pass laws to not exempt themselves and then simply ignore the law and exempt themselves in violation of the law they passed simply because they are Congress. Well, you might be able to make a tortured legal argument, I would hope you don't support that politically.

It isn't so much an argument as a fact. Our Congress does it as a matter of routine. It certainly doesn't comply with any of the very intrusive laws and regulations so favored by progressives. Indeed the idea of an executive agency, given wide discretion to make rules for the enforcement of vaguely written laws, then applying those rules by executive fiat to the Congress would be greeted with howls of laughter by our elected representatives. For specific examples, condider the fact that none of our fair employment, civil rights or tort liability laws apply to the Congress. Indeed Congressional employees are generally exempt from even civil service rules and regulations. Until very recently steam for heating the capitol was produced in a nearby (South Capitol St.) ancient coal fired boiler plant that has been wildly out of compliance with EPA clean air standards ever since they were enacted. No action ever by EPA. About a year ago the Congress voted some money to build a modern gas fired replacement, but even that was immune to active regulation. My company was involved in some aspects of the decommissioning/cleanup planning for the old plant, and we do a lot of work for the Architect of the Capitol, who works directly for the Congress.

1 Reply

Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know