Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

[Dr.Who]

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

The rule I quoted said that no notice needed to be given before the senate voted on a particular law.

The rule you quoted says that 24 hours notice must be given before a government body meets. Wanna bet that the senate meeting was scheduled days, weeks or even months in advance? The only reason the dems left town was because the vote was scheduled. It would make no sense for them to leave if no vote were scheduled.

In fact, I went to the Wisconsin assembly website and they have a calender posted. How odd that a group of people who meet regularly would have a calender.

 

[Rick]

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?

You think YOU and a leftwing county judge they went shopping for knows more about the rules than the senate parliamentarian? (Snicker )

 

[Dr.Who]

You think YOU and a leftwing county judge they went shopping for knows more about the rules than the senate parliamentarian? (Snicker )

Its possible. Logic dictates that who a person is does not make them more or less right. What they say does. And in this case it is becoming clearer that the judge was wrong. Not that it matter to the eventual outcome of the law.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its possible. Logic dictates that who a person is does not make them more or less right. What they say does. And in this case it is becoming clearer that the judge was wrong. Not that it matter to the eventual outcome of the law.

so you also belive that anyone can hold a vote on any non financial matter in the state at any time with no notice ?

4 am vote with no notice to make sure it passes and you think thats fine and legal.

 

[Rick]

Its possible. Logic dictates that who a person is does not make them more or less right. What they say does. And in this case it is becoming clearer that the judge was wrong. Not that it matter to the eventual outcome of the law.

Not even mentioning the obvious recusal issue. But note that the judge robably realizes herself that the decision will be overturned, but how long will that take? See how the game is played? They're trying to buy time - then the government unions can use their massive financial resources to affect public opinion, maybe turning a few wobbly RINOs. And of course as usual with the liberal shill media doing everything they can to help.

 

[Dr.Who]

so you also belive that anyone can hold a vote on any non financial matter in the state at any time with no notice ?

Anyone? My brother lives in Wisconsin and I do not think he could hold a vote in the senate.

Any financial matter? I would prefer that the governing legislative bodies stick to laws that are designed to protect us from harm and would limit what kinds of things they could regulate. As far as I can tell the union had no special rights before 1959 but were then given them by law so this is a return to what it should be.

At any time? The senate should be able to hold meetings at any time. Otherwise they would not be able to respond to emergency situations. But when they do they should be aware that the people might just suspect they are shady and vote them out of office. We will see just which legislators the people of Wisc think are shady in the next election.

No notice? The rule is that no notice must be given. Apparently it is assumed that all the congressmen will actually be there to know what is going on and not that they will skip the state. But notice was given two hours prior. Should a rule be instated that prior notice will be given from now on? Then they should propose a change in the rules to make that so.

4 am vote with no notice to make sure it passes and you think thats fine and legal.

Was it passed at 4 am? I had not heard that part before. It would have passed at 4 pm too. But that is not the best way to run a government. It proves that politicians will be politicians and none of them are to be trusted. But apparently it was legal.

I don't recall you complaining when Obamacare was passed. I did. I think the early morning votes are evidence of shadiness no matter who does it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Anyone? My brother lives in Wisconsin and I do not think he could hold a vote in the senate.

Any financial matter? I would prefer that the governing legislative bodies stick to laws that are designed to protect us from harm and would limit what kinds of things they could regulate. As far as I can tell the union had no special rights before 1959 but were then given them by law so this is a return to what it should be.

At any time? The senate should be able to hold meetings at any time. Otherwise they would not be able to respond to emergency situations. But when they do they should be aware that the people might just suspect they are shady and vote them out of office. We will see just which legislators the people of Wisc think are shady in the next election.

Also did you read the rules I posted at all? It is very clear that there is a exemption for emergency cases...however I don't think breaking Unions up is a we need this done today can't wait 24 hours Emergency. It was a Political Emergency that they did not want to have to have the 24 hours of backlash against them for the fact that they had stripped everything financial out of a law claiming it was needed for finances...while not being able to agree to a bill that had them agreeing to all the finances.



No notice? The rule is that no notice must be given. Apparently it is assumed that all the congressmen will actually be there to know what is going on and not that they will skip the state. But notice was given two hours prior. Should a rule be instated that prior notice will be given from now on? Then they should propose a change in the rules to make that so.




Was it passed at 4 am? I had not heard that part before. It would have passed at 4 pm too. But that is not the best way to run a government. It proves that politicians will be politicians and none of them are to be trusted. But apparently it was legal.

I don't recall you complaining when Obamacare was passed. I did. I think the early morning votes are evidence of shadiness no matter who does it.

By anyone I ment just any Sentor or house member that is there ( as the point of pulling all non financial parts out was there was then no min amount of people voting) and it was not at 4am...but if there was no rule about waiting 24 hours...you could...at 4 am hold a vote with no notice...and with like 3 people there to vote , then say look it passed....

even 2 hours, even asuming you found out 2 hours before...WI is a large state you could be 4 hour drive away...and thats assuming you could drop all things at will and go run to vote..

the 24 hours for a vote is there for a reason, it was not followed, the courts have agreed that this was passed to soon and before it is all said and done I think the State SC will agree and void it...but so far your statement "apparently legal" seems to fly in the face of the fact that the courts so far have said no it was not...for the very same reason I stated.

And I don't recall anyone not knowing about the health care vote and not beling able to have time to get there for it.. After all they where talking about the vote for days before it happened....and there was a year of debate about bill overall...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You think YOU and a leftwing county judge they went shopping for knows more about the rules than the senate parliamentarian? (Snicker )

I think you know nothing about them ( mostly becuse you choose not to as to do so would hurt your case)

And guess what, we are not the only ones saying it was against the rules ( also note that YES a WI State Judge knows more about WI State laws then you do...There is a reason before the vote one member was Yelling at the Chair that this was in violation of the law for the same reason I have said.

You of course have posted nothing to suggest it was legal...while I posted...the LAW in question...so when you decide to actuly do anything more then cry Liberal and act like that is debate and makes your case..you may as well just not post anything...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Not even mentioning the obvious recusal issue. But note that the judge robably realizes herself that the decision will be overturned, but how long will that take? See how the game is played? They're trying to buy time - then the government unions can use their massive financial resources to affect public opinion, maybe turning a few wobbly RINOs. And of course as usual with the liberal shill media doing everything they can to help.

what recusal issue? and keep in mind I know your going to sit and have no problem with Clarance Thomas ruling on Obamas health care program...even though his wife makes works for a lobby group against it.

 

[Rick]

what recusal issue? .

Really.........no kidding...........read the thread.

 

[Rick]

You of course have posted nothing to suggest it was legal...while I posted...the LAW in question ..

And you graduated from WHAT law school?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

And you graduated from WHAT law school?

you don't need to go to a law school to be able to read and know laws.

 

[Dr.Who]

By anyone I ment just any Sentor or house member that is there ( as the point of pulling all non financial parts out was there was then no min amount of people voting) and it was not at 4am...but if there was no rule about waiting 24 hours...you could...at 4 am hold a vote with no notice...and with like 3 people there to vote , then say look it passed....

even 2 hours, even asuming you found out 2 hours before...WI is a large state you could be 4 hour drive away...and thats assuming you could drop all things at will and go run to vote..

the 24 hours for a vote is there for a reason, it was not followed, the courts have agreed that this was passed to soon and before it is all said and done I think the State SC will agree and void it...but so far your statement "apparently legal" seems to fly in the face of the fact that the courts so far have said no it was not...for the very same reason I stated.

And I don't recall anyone not knowing about the health care vote and not beling able to have time to get there for it.. After all they where talking about the vote for days before it happened....and there was a year of debate about bill overall...

Using that logic then the democrats who fled the state specifically so they would not have to vote on the law must have known that it was slated to come up for a vote. They thought that they could avoid having the law be voted on by not being there but the pubs changed the law so that they did not have to be there. But it would appear that the pubs did not break the letter of any rule. What they did was underhanded but it was the logical reaction to the underhanded action of the dems.

There is a good reason for not having a rule that advance notice must be given before laws are voted on - so that in an emergency the necessary actions of the state are not delayed. The dems should have made changes to that rules when they were in power. Thy should probably make changes now or when they are in power next.

I agree that it was sneaky but the end result is the right one. That does not justify it. What the pubs should do now is pass a second law that is identical to the first and do it with advance notice and while the dems are there.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Using that logic then the democrats who fled the state specifically so they would not have to vote on the law must have known that it was slated to come up for a vote. They thought that they could avoid having the law be voted on by not being there but the pubs changed the law so that they did not have to be there. But it would appear that the pubs did not break the letter of any rule. What they did was underhanded but it was the logical reaction to the underhanded action of the dems.

There is a good reason for not having a rule that advance notice must be given before laws are voted on - so that in an emergency the necessary actions of the state are not delayed. The dems should have made changes to that rules when they were in power. Thy should probably make changes now or when they are in power next.

I agree that it was sneaky but the end result is the right one. That does not justify it. What the pubs should do now is pass a second law that is identical to the first and do it with advance notice and while the dems are there.

The bill voted on was not the bill they left due to...
What rules changes should they make? The Rules already say you can't do what they did.
And Yes if they did that it would be wrong but legal if they revote...but I have a feeling a revote does not go as republicans want and they lose some votes. As someone who practicly lives in WI ( its like a 10 min drive and use to be 5, and I spend a decent amount of time over there.) I can tell you there has been quite the backlash against those that voted for this.

When Republicans Ran they said it was about Jobs...they where not elected to bust up unions and fake Financial hardship to justify it.

 

[PLC1]

And you graduated from WHAT law school?

No doubt the same one you did. I'm an alumnus as well.

Luckily for us, and for the democratic process, it will be judges familiar with Wisconsin laws who decide this case, not the members of HOP.