Breaking: Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin union law

[Avatar4321]

here we go!

If you have that big of a problem answering the question, then I conclude that you don't have an answer.

i'm going to go with " overseer of laws" as one. The judge could have said no, it passed move on, And then You, Oddball, Eagle, mini, and the like would be clapping like seals....

You can align yourself with anyone you want. You may even be right. But unless you can actually intellectually defend your position and explain the action that the judge took and why you think the challenge to the law is valid, no reason person should listen to your bullcrap.

 

[Care4all]

So, you have no answer...Thanks for your blind support of anarchy, as long as you get the results you like.

do shut up, Judges are allowed to rule on bad laws. This is what you do when you dont think a law is "constitutional, You know like how some think with Obama care.

Its quite hack to call it anarchy because you disagree with the judge.

Maybe replace the tampon?

The judges arent allowed to arbitrarily rule on bad laws. We are asking you for the law that allows them to do this.

You won't provide it. Which means you don't know.

you didn't read about the law at the time the republicans passed this measure? It was ALL OVER the place Avatar....I'm certain a simple google can give answers to your questions on it....if you would like, I could google it for you, but honestly....you can inform yourself more on it, if you do it for yourself.

 

[Oddball]

A lawsuit has been filed that the law is not valid. The court will have to hear this suit, but in the meantime the plaintiff has also asked for a temporary injunction until the matter can be heard in court and the case decided. A temporary injunction is generally appropriate when issuing one will preserve the status quo until the case is decided.

Well, I knew somebody could come up with a cogent answer.

props

nobody else felt like holding you or avatar's hand in this. A five year old understand simple government like this.

Translation: I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about and got rescued by someone who did.

 

[Intense]

Under what jurisdiction is this judge acting?

In the court of self-interest and moral bankruptcy!

When a law is illegal, what are the group of people who strike down bad laws....


Judges......

And what the Renegade Democrats are doing is legal and ethical??? I think not.

 

[Avatar4321]

nobody else felt like holding you or avatar's hand in this. A five year old understand simple government like this.

Which is why you can't even provide any argument about why the law is illegal.

For something a 5 year old could do, you seem very unwilling to actually engage in discussion about it.

 

[gekaap]

But you have no evidence whatsoever that the judge is acting within proper jurisdiction.

You're using the word "jurisdiction" in an odd way that makes me think you're misusing it. The judge has jurisdiction to hear the case. She has authority to grant the temporary injunction.

 

[Intense]

here we go!

So, you have no answer...Thanks for your blind support of anarchy, as long as you get the results you like.

i think you need to go research subject matter jurisdiction and then look up "anarchy".

Courts ignoring the illegality is what would be anarchy.

It's intellectually dishonest to say that judges should strike down an act of congress just because you don't like it, but that a state's courts should have no right to strike down a state law that may have been passed illegally.

So the whole Immigration Issue and how it is being handled is Anarchy??? That explains allot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Under what jurisdiction is this judge acting?

Wisconsin has..

• Municipal Courts
• Circuit Courts
• Appeals Courts
• Supreme Court

The Judge is listed in the Wisconsin Judges listing as a Circuit Court Judge (for Dane County) which means she can hear state level cases within her circuit. If the particpants don't like her ruling (which I assume one of the two will not) then they go to an Appeals Court then it can be appealed to the State Supreme Court.

Wisconsin Court System - About the courts



>>>>

 

[Two Thumbs]

24 hours isn't a long time.

Most likely the judge is pandering to his own base in hopes of getting re-elected.

I'd bet my bottom dollar this was planned well before the law was passed.

 

[jillian]

In the court of self-interest and moral bankruptcy!

When a law is illegal, what are the group of people who strike down bad laws....


Judges......

And what the Renegade Democrats are doing is legal and ethical??? I think not.

legal? why is it illegal? generally illegal acts have to be proscribed by criminal law.

ethical?

absolutely.

far more ethical than lying about why you are doing something... like pretending its about saving money when it's about union busting.

 

[Care4all]

It probably BROKE the law, that 24 hour notice to the public, so that the public was notified and could respond to, the government's actions and vote on this....

this is what has to be reviewed.

 

[Avatar4321]

do shut up, Judges are allowed to rule on bad laws. This is what you do when you dont think a law is "constitutional, You know like how some think with Obama care.

Its quite hack to call it anarchy because you disagree with the judge.

Maybe replace the tampon?

The judges arent allowed to arbitrarily rule on bad laws. We are asking you for the law that allows them to do this.

You won't provide it. Which means you don't know.

you didn't read about the law at the time the republicans passed this measure? It was ALL OVER the place Avatar....I'm certain a simple google can give answers to your questions on it....if you would like, I could google it for you, but honestly....you can inform yourself more on it, if you do it for yourself.

Another person who is trying to make excuses for why they don't have to back up their claims. I expect more from you care. I don't see what's so unreasonable about a person claiming that the law is illegal to back up their claims with some sort of coherent argument. Nor do I see why i should be persuaded adopt their position when they refuse to put the least bit of effort to persuade me.

 

[Oddball]

you didn't read about the law at the time the republicans passed this measure? It was ALL OVER the place Avatar....I'm certain a simple google can give answers to your questions on it....if you would like, I could google it for you, but honestly....you can inform yourself more on it, if you do it for yourself.

I read that the same bunch of mewling bitches were pissing all over themselves when it got passed. But to me, that's pretty much the same cacophony we had been hearing for weeks.

Nonetheless, there's absolutely nothing stopping the legislature from having a do-over...Which is what I strongly suspect will happen if this suit goes anywhere.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

do shut up, Judges are allowed to rule on bad laws. This is what you do when you dont think a law is "constitutional, You know like how some think with Obama care.

Its quite hack to call it anarchy because you disagree with the judge.

Maybe replace the tampon?

The judges arent allowed to arbitrarily rule on bad laws. We are asking you for the law that allows them to do this.

You won't provide it. Which means you don't know.

but she didnt, had you read the link you would have seen she was asked to by the AG....

do you need big pictures showing you step by step how to make toast as well?

jesus fuck.

She was NOT asked by the Attorney General, she was petitioned by a Local DA. Learn to read.

 

[jillian]

So, you have no answer...Thanks for your blind support of anarchy, as long as you get the results you like.

i think you need to go research subject matter jurisdiction and then look up "anarchy".

Courts ignoring the illegality is what would be anarchy.

It's intellectually dishonest to say that judges should strike down an act of congress just because you don't like it, but that a state's courts should have no right to strike down a state law that may have been passed illegally.

So the whole Immigration Issue and how it is being handled is Anarchy??? That explains allot.

i know you're being funny, but courts can't act on cases that aren't brought before them by litigants.

So i'm not quite sure what anarchy you're referring to on the part of the courts. Nice volley, though.

 

[Avatar4321]

It probably BROKE the law, that 24 hour notice to the public, so that the public was notified and could respond to, the government's actions and vote on this....

this is what has to be reviewed.

This is what I mean. It's not difficult to provide this as the justification. Though honestly, I think it's a pretty week objection to the legality of the law when we've had weeks of protests over the law prior to the vote.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It probably BROKE the law, that 24 hour notice to the public, so that the public was notified and could respond to, the government's actions and vote on this....

this is what has to be reviewed.

The public gets no vote on legislative bills. Wisconsin is not a full democracy, they operate like every other State. The only thing the public votes on are things that require a public vote, and legislative action does not require a public vote.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order, which was requested by that county's District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat. Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law.

Judge temporarily blocks Wis. union law - Politics - msnbc.com

What position did the Judge take on the Democrats running away???? Seems like a Partisan Hack and a Hypocrite.

How did they meet without the 24-hour notice when we all knew about it for weeks?

Actually the bill as voted didn't exist for weeks. The orginianal Budget Repair Bill was a spending bill that required a quorum (hence the Democrats running away). The legislature modified the bill (so it was no longer the same bill) in committee removing the spending provisions so that it was no longer a spending bill and was now a non-spending bill which required a simple majority of those present not a quorum. Then immediately (within a few hours) was put to the floor for a vote.

Stripping the spending portion of the bill to remove the quorum requirement in committee was probably not a problem. Not providing advance notice of the changes and then having a short notice vote appears to be a problem under Wisconsin law.



If the legislature had announced the committe meeting and follow on vote in advance, then the stay would likely not have been issued. (IMHO of course.)


>>>>

 

[Care4all]

It probably BROKE the law, that 24 hour notice to the public, so that the public was notified and could respond to, the government's actions and vote on this....

this is what has to be reviewed.

The public gets no vote on legislative bills. Wisconsin is not a full democracy, they operate like every other State. The only thing the public votes on are things that require a public vote, and legislative action does not require a public vote.

What vote for the public?

that's not the law in wisconsin....but there is a law that states the public must be given 24 hour public notice on when their legislature introduces a law that involves money is my understanding....and that the republicans DID NOT issue a public notice to the citizens of their state for this measure...

do you see something wrong with such a law....? forcing the gvt to notify state citizens within 24 hours of their scheduled vote, on money spending or saving measures?

I don't!

I think it is a good measure all around!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

It probably BROKE the law, that 24 hour notice to the public, so that the public was notified and could respond to, the government's actions and vote on this....

this is what has to be reviewed.

This is what I mean. It's not difficult to provide this as the justification. Though honestly, I think it's a pretty week objection to the legality of the law when we've had weeks of protests over the law prior to the vote.

you could have read the link..........Call me outrageous for suggesting such a radical thing, but you could have.

You being lazy is not an excuse.

Im not being lazy. You are. You've spent more time whining about others than simply providing your argument.