Judge blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

[PLC1]

There is no doubt that the unions needed to lose special collective rights for Wisconsin to better balance its budget.

Actually, yes, there is considerable doubt, however...

Whether or not Walker also wanted to attack unions very well might be a separate issue. Though I would say that unions being allowed to have the state directly collect dues from employees is a great example of a law that needed to be changed too.

So did Walker use the budget as an excuse to also address the other things about unions that needed change? Probably. I am always in favor of clean bills. i.e. a bill should only be about what it is said to be about. Do you agree?

You are correct here. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change if a bill addressed only one issue instead of a dozen unrelated ones, and if pols would quit using one issue as an excuse to do what they wanted to do all along?

 

[Rick]

I am always in favor of clean bills. i.e. a bill should only be about what it is said to be about. Do you agree?

Where do you getb THAT??? He connected up the principal cause with the principle effect!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't remember what he was supposes to respond to. What is the easy question?

I asked him if Clarence Tomas should have to recuse himself from a Obama Health care vote do to the fact his wife works for a group fighting against it, and she is paid for this...Then he tried to play the well I don't know if its true game...its not something hard to verify of course...but knowing no proof would ever be enough I asked...ok then If what i said was true...then would you say he should Recuse himself..

a simple yes or no would be all that is needed...

 

[Dr.Who]

Where do you getb THAT??? He connected up the principal cause with the principle effect!

The purpose of the bill was to reduce the budget. Eliminating much of the collective bargaining was necessary. Whether or not the members of the unions paid their dues voluntarily or involuntarily, while important for other reasons, will not help the state's budget. It should have been a separate bill.

Prove me wrong, I am ready to be persuaded. But don't just say that it would tie he hands of the unions or make them smaller - it is not the states place to pick winners or losers or to decide how large a private club should be. (previously the state did pick winners and losers by making laws that caused dues to be involuntary and that was wrong)

 

[Dr.Who]

I asked him if Clarence Tomas should have to recuse himself from a Obama Health care vote do to the fact his wife works for a group fighting against it, and she is paid for this...Then he tried to play the well I don't know if its true game...its not something hard to verify of course...but knowing no proof would ever be enough I asked...ok then If what i said was true...then would you say he should Recuse himself..

a simple yes or no would be all that is needed...

Ahh, an interesting question. A first response would be that he should recuse himself so that the process would remain impartial. But if he did then the balance of the court would change and that itself would make the process lose impartiality.

When a local judge recuses himself he is replaced by another judge at random. Who will replace Thomas if he steps aside?

Assuming another judge can be temporarily assigned to take his place without partiality he should recuse himself. If not then he must remain. Perhaps his wife could change her role.

Though apparently I have a higher standard than most. Even the liberal leaning Politifact says the need for him to recuse himself is half true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../rep-anthony-weiner-law-clear-clarence-thoma/