Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

[BigRob]

Actually, the wisconsin senate's parliamentarian says the vote met all requirements including notice.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-says-vote-procedurally-was-sound_553945.html

As for judge sumi, she should have recused herself. Turns out her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. She is the of the same stripe.

When you look at ALL the facts, it's clear the judge's ruling is just ANOTHER example of the leftwing elite stopping the democratic process when it doesn't go the "correct" way.

I don't agree that the actions of the Judge's son means she would need to recuse herself from this case....

I don't agree with her ruling, but ultimately it will be overturned anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, the wisconsin senate's parliamentarian says the vote met all requirements including notice.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-says-vote-procedurally-was-sound_553945.html

As for judge sumi, she should have recused herself. Turns out her son is a political operative who also happens to be a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. She is the of the same stripe.

When you look at ALL the facts, it's clear the judge's ruling is just ANOTHER example of the leftwing elite stopping the democratic process when it doesn't go the "correct" way.

It is worth actually looking at the evaluation of the rule:

"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 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."

So just where did the judge get the "24 hours" idea from? Did she just pull it out of a hat?

 

[Rick]

I don't agree that the actions of the Judge's son means she would need to recuse herself from this case....

I don't agree with her ruling, but ultimately it will be overturned anyway.

We'll have to agree to disagree - that her son has an overwhelming vested interest in the bill not passing is enough of a justification for recusal for me.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It is worth actually looking at the evaluation of the rule:

"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 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."

So just where did the judge get the "24 hours" idea from? Did she just pull it out of a hat?

From the Open Meetings Law.
"Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting. "

See 19.83 and 84 part 3.

Now somehow I have a hard time seeing how a vote to destroy unions...is of such great need that it is impossible or impractical to give 24 hours notice.

http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openmeetingslaw.html

 

[Gipper]

From the Open Meetings Law.
"Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting. "

See 19.83 and 84 part 3.

Now somehow I have a hard time seeing how a vote to destroy unions...is of such great need that it is impossible or impractical to give 24 hours notice.

http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openmeetingslaw.html

It was NOT "...a vote to destroy unions..." You have once again bought a lie promoted by the Left. He merely wanted to remove certain things from collective bargaining like work rules and employee benefits, excepting salaries.

The citizens of WI voted in a governor who campaigned on fixing the state's fiscal problems. And, he tried to do just that lawfully. But, the left will not accept the law when it in any way, negatively impacts them.

 

[Rick]

This pattern is familiar in California. The people, even in largely liberal states like California or Wisconsin tire of leftwing policies, vote at the polls to overturn them, and then a leftwing judge rushes in and slams the brakes on the result of the democratic process because they don't like the result. Day by day, issue by issue, the leftwingers are destroying democracy and constitutionalism, and replacing it with policy determination by a leftwing administrative state, whose un-elected operatives view themselves an elite who know what's best for the unwashed masses, the religion and gun clingers.

 

[nobull]

the freedom of association is a right shared by all Americans and protected by the First Amendment. But, collective bargaining is a special power occasionally granted to some unions. In upholding North Carolina’s ban on government union collective bargaining, a federal court wrote in Atkins vs. City of Charlotte: “All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process.”

the budget bill in Wisconsin in no way infringes on any Americans’ right to associate and lobby government. What it does do is allow Wisconsin employees to choose not to join a union and keep their job at the same time. It also forces the government unions in Wisconsin to collect their own union dues instead of using the power of the state to withhold them directly from employee paychecks.

Now here is a question you’ll never see in a New York Times poll: “do you favor forcing all state employees to join a union and empowering government unions to take union dues directly from employee paychecks?”

just sayin

doug

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It was NOT "...a vote to destroy unions..." You have once again bought a lie promoted by the Left. He merely wanted to remove certain things from collective bargaining like work rules and employee benefits, excepting salaries.

The citizens of WI voted in a governor who campaigned on fixing the state's fiscal problems. And, he tried to do just that lawfully. But, the left will not accept the law when it in any way, negatively impacts them.

It was to destroy unions, keep thinking otherwise...

and I like how you compleatly avoid the point about 24 hours notice and all those legal issues....

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I notice the right got very silent about the legality of the vote all the sudden..chirp chirp

 

[BigRob]

I notice the right got very silent about the legality of the vote all the sudden..chirp chirp

There is nothing to say on it...a Judge issued a temporary restraining order under the question that it was...

Many arguments on both sides of the issue, but a technicality on the timing of the vote is not going to change anything... this bill will ultimately become law, whether the state Legislature has to vote on it again or not.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There is nothing to say on it...a Judge issued a temporary restraining order under the question that it was...

Many arguments on both sides of the issue, but a technicality on the timing of the vote is not going to change anything... this bill will ultimately become law, whether the state Legislature has to vote on it again or not.

realy who says they don't throw out the Illegal vote ...and then the Dems leave the state again?

And since when did giving enough time for people to actuly know what the bill is and get go to the vote...= a "technicality"?

If 2 Dems in the middle of the night get board and throw up a bill that says All Federal Workers have full Union Rights back...and they both vote for it..its law if a gov signs it? 2 peoples vote, 5 min notice...its law?

I can only guess the great laws one could pass if we just overlook that little "technicality"

Also its Gipper crying that Liberals don't respect the law...by a judge making a ruling...based on what the law says. Or steve calling the Judges ruling based on this law, that of a Nazi, And Dr. Who asking if they just pulled 24 hours law out of a hat...

Its a typical of the republicans Response...ignore facts, and rant about Liberals as Nazis or Communists.

 

[BigRob]

realy who says they don't throw out the Illegal vote ...and then the Dems leave the state again?

The Republicans don't need any of the Democrats to be in the state to pass the legislation again....

And since when did giving enough time for people to actuly know what the bill is and get go to the vote...= a "technicality"?

Since the law was written that way.

If 2 Dems in the middle of the night get board and throw up a bill that says All Federal Workers have full Union Rights back...and they both vote for it..its law if a gov signs it? 2 peoples vote, 5 min notice...its law?

I can only guess the great laws one could pass if we just overlook that little "technicality"

Under the procedures of the state Legislature, what you describe is simply impossible.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Republicans don't need any of the Democrats to be in the state to pass the legislation again....



Since the law was written that way.



Under the procedures of the state Legislature, what you describe is simply impossible.

true since they stripped all the actul financial parts of the bill ( to fix the budget?) they can...but at least they would have to hold a real vote, and Dems would actuly get to have some say even if they lost. And I would not be shocked if a few changed there vote...there is a reason they did this so fast...if they felt it would just pass..they could have easily waited 24 hours and voted and passed it...but they knew the hell that would fall on them for the vote as it was passed.

Yes since they wrote that law...for a reason...Do you not belive that a vote on a vital issue should at least be known for 24 hours before a vote is held unless a urgent need is there?

Yes it is...for good reason...but if we just ignore what you and other Republicans call now a "technicality" it would be...hence the reason for the law.

 

[Rick]

I notice the right got very silent about the legality of the vote all the sudden..chirp chirp

Your theory has already been squashed - reread the thread.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Your theory has already been squashed - reread the thread.

what planet do you people live on? Court rules, I post the exact law showing why they ruled that way...and you think you win because you ranted and want to be right?