Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

[pocketfullofshells]

Conservative ( I don't speak for republicans) judges have the same likelihood of having to recuse themselves for personal affiliations, but what conservative judges lack that leftwing judges have in spades is the elitist, anti-democratic contempt for the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution.

since you again avoid it...

Do you support Clarance thomas having to recuse himself from the Health care Bill when it comes to the SC.

You may as well say yes or no, I am going to keep on this till you do.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do you have the same concerning regards to Republican appointed judges? Both sides can be corrupt and influenced by their personal lives.

I just thought I should add...Sumi, the judge in question...was placed on the bench by Thompson..Republican.

 

[Dr.Who]

Just a guess... i think laws overtake rules.

And there is a reason for these laws...to give the people a chance to know what the bill is being voted on.

the justification of its past when the budget was due...well if it already was passed....what exactly was the penalty if having to wait 24 hours? nothing happened when it passed the time and nothing was going to happen if they did not pass it before 24 hours was up...Also please tell me how a bill with no financial parts in the bill ( as they where taken out to make the bill something they could vote on with less votes) is needed to pass a budget...It had zero impact on that budget. All the Budget issues...had already been agreed to...and then where pulled from the bill.

The Bill was forced threw, and they overlooked the rules to get it done...
Also please show me what law the Senators broke by not being at a vote...I think you will find there is none...

If the 24 hour law is said to apply then the union law will be voided. We will see soon.

It was forced through. Do you have a problem with all laws that are forced though?

According to Article IV, Section 7 of Wisconsin's constitution, the legislature "may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide."

I would now add that the dems broke a constitutional law and the pubs may have broken a local law that may or may not apply to them as they have an immunity to certain laws.

Does anyone doubt that the budget problems are due in large part to the unions and that weakening the unions will allow the budget to be altered more easily? Well, I think I have seen you doubt that, but my opinion is that it is undoubtable.

 

[Rick]

since you again avoid it...

Do you support Clarance thomas having to recuse himself from the Health care Bill when it comes to the SC.

You may as well say yes or no, I am going to keep on this till you do.

Let's hear your evidence that Thomas is biased in any previous decisions. You also haven't presented any evidence (from a credible, reliable, competent source - not huffington post ) about his wife's activities. Also, there has to be a STRONG showing of bias in the case of the unique USSC - an unwarranted recusal there can utterly distort US policies and harm a large number of people for a long time, whereas low-level wisconsin judges are a dime a dozen and can easily be substituted. A recusal at the USSC in the current era is especially bad, because of obozo's incompetent appointments including at least one anti-white racist.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If the 24 hour law is said to apply then the union law will be voided. We will see soon.

It was forced through. Do you have a problem with all laws that are forced though?

According to Article IV, Section 7 of Wisconsin's constitution, the legislature "may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide."

I would now add that the dems broke a constitutional law and the pubs may have broken a local law that may or may not apply to them as they have an immunity to certain laws.

Does anyone doubt that the budget problems are due in large part to the unions and that weakening the unions will allow the budget to be altered more easily? Well, I think I have seen you doubt that, but my opinion is that it is undoubtable.

the house may compel...that does not mean that being gone is against the law...it simply means that the house can compel them to vote...compel is a very vague word meaning basically...you can very sternly ask them to come vote...thats about it. If it was the law you had to be there to vote...no one would be left as there is not one member that is there for evry single vote.

had the rule said to vote was mandatory under penalty of law...that would be different...but it says...may be...and compelled , and under penalties each house may provide...there is no penalty is there?

And that it may be easier to deal with a union later on finances may be true...There was no need for the vote to be held with less then 24 hours and you know it. If the vote had finances in it, then it needed more people to vote....The bill can't change the finances and budget of the state, at the same time as not being financial.

And boo hoo the poor state is soo in need of funds....so in need that the republicans gave a tax break right before they tried to pay for the tax break with money from teachers, Nurses, and public workers.

I hope the middle class burys the republicans soon before we get buried by them

 

[Dr.Who]

the house may compel...that does not mean that being gone is against the law...it simply means that the house can compel them to vote...compel is a very vague word meaning basically...you can very sternly ask them to come vote...thats about it. If it was the law you had to be there to vote...no one would be left as there is not one member that is there for evry single vote.

had the rule said to vote was mandatory under penalty of law...that would be different...but it says...may be...and compelled , and under penalties each house may provide...there is no penalty is there?

And that it may be easier to deal with a union later on finances may be true...There was no need for the vote to be held with less then 24 hours and you know it. If the vote had finances in it, then it needed more people to vote....The bill can't change the finances and budget of the state, at the same time as not being financial.

And boo hoo the poor state is soo in need of funds....so in need that the republicans gave a tax break right before they tried to pay for the tax break with money from teachers, Nurses, and public workers.

I hope the middle class burys the republicans soon before we get buried by them

The law compelling them to vote said that any punishment could be meted out. Are you suggesting that the constitution of Wisconsin allows for the senators to be punished with any penalty if they are in fact not guilty of breaking any law? Punishing innocent people is not the way things are done.

And several times now it has been proven that the tax breaks you are complaining about will increase revenue to Wisconsin so they are a good thing.

 

[PLC1]

Does anyone doubt that the budget problems are due in large part to the unions and that weakening the unions will allow the budget to be altered more easily? Well, I think I have seen you doubt that, but my opinion is that it is undoubtable.

Yes, I doubt.

For one thing, the budget was only compromised if the management gave away more at the bargaining table than they could afford.

For another, if the school districts in Wisconsin are like the ones here, they could save a lot more by cutting out layers of bureaucracy than by cutting back the teaching staff.

 

[Gipper]

Yes, I doubt.

For one thing, the budget was only compromised if the management gave away more at the bargaining table than they could afford.

For another, if the school districts in Wisconsin are like the ones here, they could save a lot more by cutting out layers of bureaucracy than by cutting back the teaching staff.

Well, the management you refer to WAS liberal/progressive Dems who gladly gave away the tax payers money to help the stinking public unions...so those same unions would give the stinking Dems campaign contributions.

Now, many Americans have said enough and voted in R governors who are intent on fixing the problem.

Things change. That life time pension of yours could in jeopardy and sorry, but it is about time.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The law compelling them to vote said that any punishment could be meted out. Are you suggesting that the constitution of Wisconsin allows for the senators to be punished with any penalty if they are in fact not guilty of breaking any law? Punishing innocent people is not the way things are done.

And several times now it has been proven that the tax breaks you are complaining about will increase revenue to Wisconsin so they are a good thing.

realy it said any punishment? Death?

Care to say where it says any punishment? Because what you posted did not say that at all...

And again, saying that the state can compel something...is not the same as saying if one does not do it they are breaking a law...

Also republicans saying tax breaks are a good thing, is not proof...if it was...the Bush tax cut was great and we should be rolling in money. Tax cuts cost money...if your in debt and you cut taxes...you are now farther in debt...its not a hard concept.

 

[Gipper]

realy it said any punishment? Death?

Care to say where it says any punishment? Because what you posted did not say that at all...

And again, saying that the state can compel something...is not the same as saying if one does not do it they are breaking a law...

Also republicans saying tax breaks are a good thing, is not proof...if it was...the Bush tax cut was great and we should be rolling in money. Tax cuts cost money...if your in debt and you cut taxes...you are now farther in debt...its not a hard concept.

Why do liberals persist in believing lies? It is most unsettling. Amazingly many libs will continue to believe lies even when shown the truth. This has to be some kind of mental instability.

As some have pointed out, liberals live in a fantasy land and conservatives live in reality. How can we ever work together with these huge differences? If someone is NUTS, you should never accept their opinions/advice. Right?

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

And here....
http://www.newsmax.com/Rahn/Bushtaxcutsbarack/2010/09/27/id/371634

Its actually been proven a thousand times....over and over....and yet, libs still believe the lies told by their leaders and their media.

 

[dogtowner]

Let's hear your evidence that Thomas is biased in any previous decisions. You also haven't presented any evidence (from a credible, reliable, competent source - not huffington post ) about his wife's activities. Also, there has to be a STRONG showing of bias in the case of the unique USSC - an unwarranted recusal there can utterly distort US policies and harm a large number of people for a long time, whereas low-level wisconsin judges are a dime a dozen and can easily be substituted. A recusal at the USSC in the current era is especially bad, because of obozo's incompetent appointments including at least one anti-white racist.

His missus as a connection to the Tea Party folks who oppose obamacare on Constitutional grounds as opposed to financial or ideological interests. Somehow peole like to forget this significant distinction.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, I doubt.

For one thing, the budget was only compromised if the management gave away more at the bargaining table than they could afford.

For another, if the school districts in Wisconsin are like the ones here, they could save a lot more by cutting out layers of bureaucracy than by cutting back the teaching staff.

I believe you do doubt. You doubt the unions result in poor budget.

The budget was already compromised. It has been for years now. No one can doubt that the pensions giving teachers retirement benefits often reaching $40K per year guaranteed with no knowledge of how long a person would live and starting as early as age 55 is far far more generous than the vast majority of people in the private sector. This has been going on for years and it is too much the way it is set up.

I don't think you understand pyramidal organizational charts. Sure the few on the top make more than the masses on the bottom but they make much less total than the total of all those on the lower levels. You could cut one hundred percent of the salaries of the all the administrators and it would not add up to what all the teachers make.

 

[Dr.Who]

realy it said any punishment? Death?

Care to say where it says any punishment? Because what you posted did not say that at all...

And again, saying that the state can compel something...is not the same as saying if one does not do it they are breaking a law...

Also republicans saying tax breaks are a good thing, is not proof...if it was...the Bush tax cut was great and we should be rolling in money. Tax cuts cost money...if your in debt and you cut taxes...you are now farther in debt...its not a hard concept.

I posted a quote from the constitution. I would add that the constitution is a law. It says that the house gets to decide what penalties get meted out. There is no limit on what the penalties might be. It says that the police are allowed to go get the congressmen who did not show up. And reading in the newspapers we have learned that the name of the charges would be contempt of senate and that when the police picked up the missing congressmen it would be an arrest.

I don't see how anyone could argue that going against the constitutional law, getting picked up and arrested by police, being charged with contempt of senate, and being given a punishment to be decided by the house could be anything other than breaking the law.

 

[PLC1]

I believe you do doubt. You doubt the unions result in poor budget.

The budget was already compromised. It has been for years now. No one can doubt that the pensions giving teachers retirement benefits often reaching $40K per year guaranteed with no knowledge of how long a person would live and starting as early as age 55 is far far more generous than the vast majority of people in the private sector. This has been going on for years and it is too much the way it is set up.

Yes it is more generous than most pensions, and it is paid for by the teachers/firefighters/cops involved. I'm not sure how it works in Wisconsin, nor how it is for cops and firefighters. Cops and firefighters obviously can't continue to work as long as most people, and so their retirements may have to be subsidized. Here in California, the state teachers retirement is paid for by teachers, not the taxpayers at large, and is solvent for the foreseeable future. It not too likely that "public pensions" are the real cause of the budget shortfalls. It is much more likely that the (bleep!)s want to use public pension money to help balance the budget, much as the federal con artists sto.. I mean borrowed SS funds to help balance the federal budget.

I don't think you understand pyramidal organizational charts. Sure the few on the top make more than the masses on the bottom but they make much less total than the total of all those on the lower levels. You could cut one hundred percent of the salaries of the all the administrators and it would not add up to what all the teachers make.

Not only do I understand those pyramidal charts, I also understand basic math. If the state spends $10,000 per kid, for example, which is probably pretty close to an average, then those 30 kids in Mrs. Jones' class generate $300,000. That should be enough to pay Mrs. Jones a living wage, buy books and supplies, and pay for the 900 square feet or so of space that the classroom occupies with some left over.

 

[dogtowner]

it is paid for by the teachers/firefighters/cops involved.

no, its paid for by the taxpayers. if and when they are requ9ired to contribute to it's purchase, that money originates with the taxpayers too.

Not only do I understand those pyramidal charts, I also understand basic math. If the state spends $10,000 per kid, for example, which is probably pretty close to an average, then those 30 kids in Mrs. Jones' class generate $300,000. That should be enough to pay Mrs. Jones a living wage, buy books and supplies, and pay for the 900 square feet or so of space that the classroom occupies with some left over.

So of that 300k, teacher gets about 100k in total compensation + actual cost to operate the room (maintenance, electricity, books etc). that leaves 200k. we'll ssay another 100k goes to school staff and physical poant athletics and such. And the remaining 100k and taht s100k from ALL classes, is lost in central administration. Whats wrong wit this picture ?