2 Fleebaggers Wrote Law That WI GOP Will Use to Defeat Activist Judge’s Ruling

[WorldWatcher]

The only one with anything even approaching an on-topic rebuttal is WorldWatcher, but the fact is that the Republicans emailed and posted that they were convening a SPECIAL SESSION to vote on this legislation so they not only followed the requirements, but went above them with the emails.

Please provide evidence of such e-mails and postings by "Republicans". If the e-mail and postings were by the Senate leadership they would be considered under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Rules of the Senate as a meeting under Regular Session which was scheduled for March 8th - March 10th (the Bill being passed on March 9th). And Senate Rule 93 would not have been in effect.

If the Senate had adjourced early (by March 8th) and if the e-mail and postings was sent by the Governor calling an adjourned Senate back into session to address a specific purpose, then it would have been a Special Session under the law and Senate Rule 93 would have been in effect.

We'll await your supporting evidence.



************************

Couple of things...

1. This is a "stay" not a ruling. At this point there has not been a full trial in court with each side presenting it's full case. That has yet to occur.

2. The GOP could introduce the following measures: (a) a bill to repeal the bill they just past [this renders the court case moot.], and (b) introduce a new bill doing the same thing but insuring that sufficient notice is provided. Since the GOP is in the majority, it should not be a problem to pass the newer bill.

3. From a Democrat perspective, in my personal opinion, they are trying to stall implementation of the law until the June/July time frame. They are working hard at getting the necessary signatures for the recall of Republicans and if I understand correctly - once the signatures are obtained the recall elections could happen this summer. I think thier intent is to stall the bill in the courts until they can see if they can unseat enough Republicans to change the majority party.​

>>>>

 

[DaGoose]

It must be quite embarrassing for Jillian and DaGoose to have NUTHIN of substance to refute my posts

Jillian doesn't even seem to know what a troll is. But I give Jillian credit.....what she lacks in intelligence, she more than makes up for with hate.

The only one with anything even approaching an on-topic rebuttal is WorldWatcher, but the fact is that the Republicans emailed and posted that they were convening a SPECIAL SESSION to vote on this legislation so they not only followed the requirements, but went above them with the emails.

You're pretty full of yourself, aren't you?

Since you missed my whole point I'll spell it out to you. I'd bet it will be a long time before you cry about "activist judges" again. With your non-denial you made it quite clear you approve of "juducial activism" if it's in favor of something you support.

.

 

[kaz]

oh shut up "activist Judge". Its her Job dipshit.

I guess that's true in a way since she did appoint herself dictator. But it's not what the people of Wisconsin pay her to do. She needs to be impeached.

 

[kaz]

oh shut up "activist Judge". Its her Job dipshit.

I guess that's true in a way since she did appoint herself dictator. But it's not what the people of Wisconsin pay her to do. She needs to be impeached.

for doing her job?
Th AG requested she put a stay on the law that just passed. She gave the dems and AG a week.

I assume within that week if nobody has said anything the stay will be dropped.

Judges rule on laws. If you dont like it, i suggest you start your own nation with your own constitution.

Here in america we have a balance of power.

You fundamentally don't understand "balance of power." It is not the right of three branches of government to do whatever they want as you think and that somehow keeps each other in check. They have to act within their defined roles. That she has the power to issue a stay isn't a judicial basis to issue it on and she has no authority to block legislation because she doesn't like it.

 

[TheSeeker]

for doing her job?
Th AG requested she put a stay on the law that just passed. She gave the dems and AG a week.

I assume within that week if nobody has said anything the stay will be dropped.

Judges rule on laws. If you dont like it, i suggest you start your own nation with your own constitution.

Here in america we have a balance of power.

You fundamentally don't understand "balance of power." It is not the right of three branches of government to do whatever they want as you think and that somehow keeps each other in check. They have to act within their defined roles. That she has the power to issue a stay isn't a judicial basis to issue it on and she has no authority to block legislation because she doesn't like it.

she blocked it because the AG provided evidence of it breaking a LAW. It doesn't matter if the dems wrote it or not. The Ag felt it broke the open meetings law, The judge agreed and gave him a week. After a week anything can happen. The law can continue on, or new evidence can be brought forth and the law struck down.

Yes this is how our government works.
I am sorry you and the others are too stupid to understand this.
You disliking a judgment does not make an activist.

You just proved our point......it took ME all of about 2 minutes to show where it was legal by looking at the rules.

The Republicans made SURE they were following the rules, the Clerk (who works for BOTH parties) gave them the guidelines they needed to follow.

A judge should have been able to find the same information I did, so since she blocked it anyhow, she's merely playing partisan politics.... which makes her an activist judge.

As mentioned already, she's a KNOWN activist judge since she knew teachers couldn't strike in Wisconsin, yet ruled in their favor regardless of the law.

 

[TheSeeker]

It must be quite embarrassing for Jillian and DaGoose to have NUTHIN of substance to refute my posts

Jillian doesn't even seem to know what a troll is. But I give Jillian credit.....what she lacks in intelligence, she more than makes up for with hate.

The only one with anything even approaching an on-topic rebuttal is WorldWatcher, but the fact is that the Republicans emailed and posted that they were convening a SPECIAL SESSION to vote on this legislation so they not only followed the requirements, but went above them with the emails.

You're pretty full of yourself, aren't you?

Since you missed my whole point I'll spell it out to you. I'd bet it will be a long time before you cry about "activist judges" again. With your non-denial you made it quite clear you approve of "juducial activism" if it's in favor of something you support.

.

Sorry you're not smart enough to realize when someone calls you out on a straw man argument.

There was no "non-denial" (WTF is that?)....I just didn't fall for your off-topic diversion tactic.

 

[TheSeeker]

The only one with anything even approaching an on-topic rebuttal is WorldWatcher, but the fact is that the Republicans emailed and posted that they were convening a SPECIAL SESSION to vote on this legislation so they not only followed the requirements, but went above them with the emails.

Please provide evidence of such e-mails and postings by "Republicans". If the e-mail and postings were by the Senate leadership they would be considered under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Rules of the Senate as a meeting under Regular Session which was scheduled for March 8th - March 10th (the Bill being passed on March 9th). And Senate Rule 93 would not have been in effect.


We'll await your supporting evidence.

Wisconsin Republicans Claim They Didn't Violate Open Meeting Law

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 (sic) 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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only one with anything even approaching an on-topic rebuttal is WorldWatcher, but the fact is that the Republicans emailed and posted that they were convening a SPECIAL SESSION to vote on this legislation so they not only followed the requirements, but went above them with the emails.

Please provide evidence of such e-mails and postings by "Republicans". If the e-mail and postings were by the Senate leadership they would be considered under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Rules of the Senate as a meeting under Regular Session which was scheduled for March 8th - March 10th (the Bill being passed on March 9th). And Senate Rule 93 would not have been in effect.


We'll await your supporting evidence.

Wisconsin Republicans Claim They Didn't Violate Open Meeting Law

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 (sic) 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.

Sincerley, Thank you for the link.

It confirms my suspicions. The person who you higlighted in red as "my staff" speaking/writing was the Senate Majority leader. From your link...

"Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald claims no law was broken last night when the Republicans pushed through a bill killing collective bargaining rights for union members with just two hours notice given via bulletin board. Fitzgerald is citing a Senate rule which he apparently believes overrides the state law regarding open meetings. Open meeting law typically requires twenty four hours notice."​

Now lets examine the Wisconsin Constitution...(since you like red)...

"Meeting of legislature. SECTION 11. [As amended Nov.
1881 and April 1968] The legislature shall meet at the seat of
government at such time as shall be provided by law, unless convened
by the governor in special session, and when so convened
no business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to
accomplish the special purposes for which it was convened."​

1. Under the Wisconsin Constitution, the Senate would have been in Regular Session between March 8 and March 10, passing the bill on March 9th. (The legislative schedule was previously linked.)

2. Under the Wisconsin Constitution the Senate Majority Leader is not the one to call a "Special Session", the State Constitution clearly places that authority resides with the Governor.

3. Senate Rule 93 (as previously linked) clearly shows that the exemption applies to Special Sessions, however the Legislature was not in Special Session so the exemption would not apply.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

for doing her job?
Th AG requested she put a stay on the law that just passed. She gave the dems and AG a week.

I assume within that week if nobody has said anything the stay will be dropped.

Judges rule on laws. If you dont like it, i suggest you start your own nation with your own constitution.

Here in america we have a balance of power.

You fundamentally don't understand "balance of power." It is not the right of three branches of government to do whatever they want as you think and that somehow keeps each other in check. They have to act within their defined roles. That she has the power to issue a stay isn't a judicial basis to issue it on and she has no authority to block legislation because she doesn't like it.

she blocked it because the AG provided evidence of it breaking a LAW. It doesn't matter if the dems wrote it or not. The Ag felt it broke the open meetings law, The judge agreed and gave him a week. After a week anything can happen. The law can continue on, or new evidence can be brought forth and the law struck down.

Yes this is how our government works.
I am sorry you and the others are too stupid to understand this.
You disliking a judgment does not make an activist.

So what do you think about Obama continuing with Obamacare even after it was actually struck down as unconstitutional by the courts?

Or Obama saying he wasn't going to enforce the Defense of Marriage act even though is was passed by the legislature and not struck down by the courts?

 

[WillowTree]

so lessseee here,, to sum this here clusterfuck up,,,, the fleebaggers wrote a rule, the gop followed the rule, the fleebaggers flee, and the judge punishes the gop for following a rule the fleebaggers wrote,, that is an activist judge. yep! tis!

 

[kaz]

So what do you think about Obama continuing with Obamacare even after it was actually struck down as unconstitutional by the courts?

Or Obama saying he wasn't going to enforce the Defense of Marriage act even though is was passed by the legislature and not struck down by the courts?

Nice punt.
Worldwatcher in the post above you ruined your whole point.
Now you try to change the subject onto Obama.

the republicans didnt play by the rules and therefore got caught with their hands in to cookie jar. The dems having created the bill is irrelavant, but you knew this.

So you seriously didn't see my points on crossing Constitutional authority between the branches and that liberalism is about defending liberalism, not the authority of the three branches of government? You just saw "Obama" and stopped reading? Ironically demonstrating my point I might add...

 

[TheSeeker]

Please provide evidence of such e-mails and postings by "Republicans". If the e-mail and postings were by the Senate leadership they would be considered under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Rules of the Senate as a meeting under Regular Session which was scheduled for March 8th - March 10th (the Bill being passed on March 9th). And Senate Rule 93 would not have been in effect.


We'll await your supporting evidence.

Wisconsin Republicans Claim They Didn't Violate Open Meeting Law

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 (sic) 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.

Sincerley, Thank you for the link.

It confirms my suspicions. The person who you higlighted in red as "my staff" speaking/writing was the Senate Majority leader. From your link...

"Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald claims no law was broken last night when the Republicans pushed through a bill killing collective bargaining rights for union members with just two hours notice given via bulletin board. Fitzgerald is citing a Senate rule which he apparently believes overrides the state law regarding open meetings. Open meeting law typically requires twenty four hours notice."​

Now lets examine the Wisconsin Constitution...(since you like red)...

"Meeting of legislature. SECTION 11. [As amended Nov.
1881 and April 1968] The legislature shall meet at the seat of
government at such time as shall be provided by law, unless convened
by the governor in special session, and when so convened
no business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to
accomplish the special purposes for which it was convened."​

1. Under the Wisconsin Constitution, the Senate would have been in Regular Session between March 8 and March 10, passing the bill on March 9th. (The legislative schedule was previously linked.)

2. Under the Wisconsin Constitution the Senate Majority Leader is not the one to call a "Special Session", the State Constitution clearly places that authority resides with the Governor.

3. Senate Rule 93 (as previously linked) clearly shows that the exemption applies to Special Sessions, however the Legislature was not in Special Session so the exemption would not apply.



>>>>

LOL...so you only defense is that the Governor's STAFF sent the emails?

First of all, the emails are OVER and ABOVE the requirement, so that's a non-starter. He only did that as a courtesy.

Secondly, the Governor's staff, working on his behalf, is the same as him doing it personally...they work under his authority.

Third, the ONLY REAL notice required on the bulletin by the Governor was done.

 

[WillowTree]

so lessseee here,, to sum this here clusterfuck up,,,, the fleebaggers wrote a rule, the gop followed the rule, the fleebaggers flee, and the judge punishes the gop for following a rule the fleebaggers wrote,, that is an activist judge. yep! tis!

and you still get it wrong..Jesus christ on a stick you are a grade A moron.

well, smartass, tell me which part is wrong?? we'll wait for you to elucidate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wisconsin Republicans Claim They Didn't Violate Open Meeting Law

Sincerley, Thank you for the link.

It confirms my suspicions. The person who you higlighted in red as "my staff" speaking/writing was the Senate Majority leader. From your link...

"Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald claims no law was broken last night when the Republicans pushed through a bill killing collective bargaining rights for union members with just two hours notice given via bulletin board. Fitzgerald is citing a Senate rule which he apparently believes overrides the state law regarding open meetings. Open meeting law typically requires twenty four hours notice."​

Now lets examine the Wisconsin Constitution...(since you like red)...

"Meeting of legislature. SECTION 11. [As amended Nov.
1881 and April 1968] The legislature shall meet at the seat of
government at such time as shall be provided by law, unless convened
by the governor in special session, and when so convened
no business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to
accomplish the special purposes for which it was convened."​

1. Under the Wisconsin Constitution, the Senate would have been in Regular Session between March 8 and March 10, passing the bill on March 9th. (The legislative schedule was previously linked.)

2. Under the Wisconsin Constitution the Senate Majority Leader is not the one to call a "Special Session", the State Constitution clearly places that authority resides with the Governor.

3. Senate Rule 93 (as previously linked) clearly shows that the exemption applies to Special Sessions, however the Legislature was not in Special Session so the exemption would not apply.



>>>>

LOL...so you only defense is that the Governor's STAFF sent the emails?

First of all, the emails are OVER and ABOVE the requirement, so that's a non-starter. He only did that as a courtesy.

Secondly, the Governor's staff, working on his behalf, is the same as him doing it personally...they work under his authority.

Third, the ONLY REAL notice required on the bulletin by the Governor was done.

Pssstt - I hate to break the bad news to you but the Senate Majority Leader is not a member of the Governor's staff.

You do understand that there are (generally speaking) three branches of government Executive, Legislative, and Judaical. Not only is the Senate Majority not on the Governor's Staff, he isn't even in the same branch of government.

Third, the ONLY REAL notice required on the bulletin by the Governor was done.

Good, show us there the Governor (or a member of his staff) posted the required notice on the bulletin board under the authority of the Governor's Office.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[WillowTree]

Where's rubberball? when's he gonna explain where I "got it wrong." Is he conceeding? Why yes! I think he must be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

so lessseee here,, to sum this here clusterfuck up,,,,

OK, lets review and count.

the fleebaggers wrote a rule,

Senate Rule 93 that applies to Special Session? Appears so.

the gop followed the rule,

Incorrect, Senate Rule 93 has nothing to do with Regular Sessions.

the fleebaggers flee,

True

and the judge punishes the gop for following a rule the fleebaggers wrote,

Incorrect, the Judge has punished no one as there has been no trial yet. The law was challenged, parties submitted briefs and the court felt there was justification to more forward and issued a STAY.

No one has been punished and no determination on the law has been made.

that is an activist judge. yep! tis!

Incorrect. Requiring the legislature to follow the law is not activist. If the GOP had only slowed down and researched it, the would have realized (hopefully) that Rule 93 didn't apply and that they should establish a time from to comply with the law.

It's not the Judges fault the GOP was in a hurry to pass the law at night.



**********************


Let's see 5 statements, 3 of which were incorrect.



>>>>

 

[WillowTree]

so lessseee here,, to sum this here clusterfuck up,,,,

OK, lets review and count.

the fleebaggers wrote a rule,

Senate Rule 93 that applies to Special Session? Appears so.





Incorrect, Senate Rule 93 has nothing to do with Regular Sessions.




True

and the judge punishes the gop for following a rule the fleebaggers wrote,

Incorrect, the Judge has punished no one as there has been no trial yet. The law was challenged, parties submitted briefs and the court felt there was justification to more forward and issued a STAY.

No one has been punished and no determination on the law has been made.

that is an activist judge. yep! tis!

Incorrect. Requiring the legislature to follow the law is not activist. If the GOP had only slowed down and researched it, the would have realized (hopefully) that Rule 93 didn't apply and that they should establish a time from to comply with the law.

It's not the Judges fault the GOP was in a hurry to pass the law at night.



**********************


Let's see 5 statements, 3 of which were incorrect.



>>>>

Did the judge punish them for passing a law? or for conducting a meeting improperly? And, Anyway,, why do the fleebaggers care? they fled. didn't they? they don't give a fuck about the process do they?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Did the judge punish them for passing a law?

No, the Judge issued a stay pending trial.

or for conducting a meeting improperly?

No, the Judge issued a stay pending trial.

And, Anyway,, why do the fleebaggers care?

I don't understand this the suit wasn't filed by a Senate Democrat.

they fled. didn't they?

I know if no District Attorney (the one that filed the suit) that left Wisconsin. There may have been one, but I've seen no news reports.

they don't give a fuck about the process do they?

Somebody does, they filed a suit.



>>>>

 

[WillowTree]

Did the judge punish them for passing a law?

No, the Judge issued a stay pending trial.

or for conducting a meeting improperly?

No, the Judge issued a stay pending trial.



I don't understand this the suit wasn't filed by a Senate Democrat.

they fled. didn't they?

I know if no District Attorney (the one that filed the suit) that left Wisconsin. There may have been one, but I've seen no news reports.

they don't give a fuck about the process do they?

Somebody does, they filed a suit.



>>>>

From the article.



Senate Rule 93 says that when the Legislature is in special session, "A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board."

That's the rule Republican leaders are citing in their contention that one of the votes leading up to passage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial anti-union bill was legal.

So, if the Republicans are correct and they followed the rules that the fleebaggers wrote yet the judge still finds their "misconduct" as a reason for "staying" then the GOP are in fact being punished and the FLeeBaggers did in fact FLEE.. Is the person who filed the suit a demonRat? You betcha!

 

[WorldWatcher]

From the article.

Senate Rule 93 says that when the Legislature is in special session, "A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board."

That's the rule Republican leaders are citing in their contention that one of the votes leading up to passage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial anti-union bill was legal.

So, if the Republicans are correct and they followed the rules that the fleebaggers wrote yet the judge still finds their "misconduct" as a reason for "staying" then the GOP are in fact being punished and the FLeeBaggers did in fact FLEE.. Is the person who filed the suit a demonRat? You betcha!

Please review Posts #31, #43, and #55 for content and links...

• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3442342-post31.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3443291-post43.html
• http://www.usmessageboard.com/3444209-post55.html

1. The schedule session for the Senate was schedule from March 8 - March 10, the bill in question was passed on March 9th during Regular Session.

2. Special Sessions according to the Wisconsin Constitution must be called by the Governor (who would have no reason to call a session on March 9th since the Legislature was already in Regular Session).

3. Senate Rule 93 only applies to Special Sessions, since the Legislature was in Regular Session Rule 93 would probably be found to not apply in the courts which may mean the Open Meeting law is applicable.

4. Republican leaders in the Senate can site any rule they want to justify their actions, that doesn't mean the rule actually applies in the way they hope to convince people it does.




>>>>