Wisconsin Judge Halts Further Implementation Of Union Law (Again)

[SgtMeowenstein]

Sounds like maybe she shouldn't be ruling on this. Slight bit of conflict of interest:

Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi & Her (SEIU, AFL-CIO) Political Operative Son | RedState

Here comes the activist judge routine.

Facts trouble you?

Facts don't trouble me at all; but it seems that any time a judge makes a ruling against a Repub, that judge gets accused of being an activist.

But I can play that game as well. Shall I bring up Supreme Court Justice Thomas and Scalia? Thomas' wife is on the board of an anti health care reform group. Both Thomas and Scalia have participated in Tea Party events, paid for by opponents of health care reform. Since you're willing to dismiss this WI judge, I'm sure you believe that Thomas and Scalia should recuse themselves from any Supreme Court cases involving health care reform....right?

 

[JFK_USA]

Sounds like maybe she shouldn't be ruling on this. Slight bit of conflict of interest:

Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi & Her (SEIU, AFL-CIO) Political Operative Son | RedState

Here comes the activist judge routine.

Facts trouble you?

What about the fact that the Florida judge that ruled the healthcare law unconstitutional is a huge conservative and gets money from them all the time.

But thats okay.

 

[Big Fitz]

Here comes the activist judge routine.

Facts trouble you?

What about the fact that the Florida judge that ruled the healthcare law unconstitutional is a huge conservative and gets money from them all the time.

But thats okay.

So you're having no problem with Gov Walker just implementing it anyway I guess. After all, that's what P-BO's doing with Obamacare.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

Here comes the activist judge routine.

Facts trouble you?

What about the fact that the Florida judge that ruled the healthcare law unconstitutional is a huge conservative and gets money from them all the time.

But thats okay.

So it's only a problem when a conservative judge does this? Is that what you are claiming?

 

[Big Fitz]

Facts trouble you?

What about the fact that the Florida judge that ruled the healthcare law unconstitutional is a huge conservative and gets money from them all the time.

But thats okay.

So it's only a problem when a conservative judge does this? Is that what you are claiming?

Oh damn... when I pointed at you 3 fingers were pointing back at me... and the thumb at the floor...

weren't they?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Walker is TRYING to play nice. He doesn't wanna take the asshole option, but he could: That judge is a COUNTY judge. Appeals go UP, not down. A state law can't be overturned by a county court. Walker can at anytime say "Screw you bitch, you're a county judge, this is a state law" but he's trying to lay low now that it's passed and not do that.

That would be like the state passing a 70mph speed limit, then a county judge saying "Thats not constitutional, our county will have a 150mp speed limit on all highways." Well, guess what? The speed limit is still gonna be 70. The county can't overrule a state law. Just like a state can't overturn a federal law. We learned that in Arizona, right?

Yep. I've been saying that for days. A county judge can't overthrow a state law. States set speed limits. Counties can't overthrow those.

Bucs,

Just to point out a technical correction, the question isn't whether the Budget Repair Bill as passed on March 9th is Constitutional or because of the restrictions on collective bargaining - that is NOT the issue. The issue before the court is whether the Legislature complied with legal requirements for process in passing the bill.

The court is not being asked to overturn the law, the court is being asked to rule if the Legislature complied with the law, if they did - fine. If they didn't - then it renders their actions illegal as to process and voids the law. It does not prevent (as the judge points out) re-passage of the law in a legal manner.


The judge is not being asked to overthrow the content of the law.

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

Now with that said, the Wisconsin Constitution and Senate Rule 93 appear to be on the side of the Legislature.

By March 9th the Legislature was not in "Special Session" they had convened into regular session. So the Constitution's Special Session provision no longer applied.

Wisconsin law, IIRC, provides that all public meetings must comply with Open Meeting Laws, but the Legislature is provided an exception based on their rules. Senate Rule 93: "Senate Rule 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions" provides...

"Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees or called by a joint resolution approved by both houses: " Rules of the Wisconsin Senate
​

If the Senate or Joint Legislature considered it an extraordinary session, then they do not need to comply with Open Meetings laws and only comply with their own rules.



>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

What about the fact that the Florida judge that ruled the healthcare law unconstitutional is a huge conservative and gets money from them all the time.

But thats okay.

So you're having no problem with Gov Walker just implementing it anyway I guess. After all, that's what P-BO's doing with Obamacare.

but thats not what happened

Right. Obamacare was found unconstitutional.

I fail to see your problem. Obama ignored the judges and kept on implementing. But yet you complain about Walker doing the same thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Governor Wanker, the Dems are back in town...have the vote again...during the day this time and with the appropriate notice. (or are you afraid you don't have the support now that the recall efforts are in full swing?)

 

[Seawytch]

So you're having no problem with Gov Walker just implementing it anyway I guess. After all, that's what P-BO's doing with Obamacare.

but thats not what happened

Right. Obamacare was found unconstitutional.

I fail to see your problem. Obama ignored the judges and kept on implementing. But yet you complain about Walker doing the same thing.

How many judges have ruled it Constitutional compared to those that have ruled it unconstitutional...just out of curiosity?

 

[Dr.House]

but thats not what happened

Right. Obamacare was found unconstitutional.

I fail to see your problem. Obama ignored the judges and kept on implementing. But yet you complain about Walker doing the same thing.

How many judges have ruled it Constitutional compared to those that have ruled it unconstitutional...just out of curiosity?

It only takes one....

26 states are within their legal rights to ignore 0bamacare....

 

[Seawytch]

Right. Obamacare was found unconstitutional.

I fail to see your problem. Obama ignored the judges and kept on implementing. But yet you complain about Walker doing the same thing.

How many judges have ruled it Constitutional compared to those that have ruled it unconstitutional...just out of curiosity?

It only takes one....

26 states are within their legal rights to ignore 0bamacare....

Guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? How soon before the SCOTUS ends this once and for all? (Especially since the law is clearly Constitutional)

 

[Dr.House]

How many judges have ruled it Constitutional compared to those that have ruled it unconstitutional...just out of curiosity?

It only takes one....

26 states are within their legal rights to ignore 0bamacare....

Guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? How soon before the SCOTUS ends this once and for all? (Especially since the law is clearly Constitutional)

Clearly?.....


Don't believe everything you read on HuffyPuffy.....

 

[Jack Fate]

When the left loses an election, they just find a judge they own. Gangsters have been doing this for years. Nothing new.

 

[Dr.House]

The fact that Sue-Me didn't recuse herself is a fuckin' joke....

 

[Big Fitz]

How many judges have ruled it Constitutional compared to those that have ruled it unconstitutional...just out of curiosity?

It only takes one....

26 states are within their legal rights to ignore 0bamacare....

Guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? How soon before the SCOTUS ends this once and for all? (Especially since the law is clearly Constitutional)

You're right. The WI law is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

maybe it's time to put walker in jail for contempt?

Really Jilly?
The governor should do time because you disagree with the duly legislated state law?
You're one funny little girl, boopie.
Go bake cupcakes.
Look, a judge cannot overrule a legislature. All a judge can do is render an opinion based on the evidence in front of him or her.
Then the can gets kicked down the road to the next highest court.
At the end of the day, the unions will lose this battle. It is inevitable. Deal with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the second time, a Wisconsin judge has ordered WI officials to stop implementation of Gov Scott Walker's controversial union bargaining law. We'll see how it plays out in the state Supreme Court; but for now, the law is on hold.

Wisconsin Judge Halts Further Implementation Of Union Law

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge for the second time directed the state to put on hold an explosive law that strips most public workers of nearly all their union bargaining rights, ordering officials on Tuesday to follow her original instructions to stand down.

"Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of (the law) was enjoined," said a visibly annoyed Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi. "That is what I now want to make crystal clear."

Earlier this month, Sumi issued an emergency injunction prohibiting the Wisconsin secretary of state from formally publishing the law – the final step before it could take effect.

Republican legislative leaders responded by directing the law be published by another state agency, and then declared it valid. State officials began implementing the law this weekend, stopping the collection of union dues for state workers and taking more from their pay for health care and retirement.

Sumi said Tuesday that action violated her original order, and she made it clear after a daylong hearing that the law was on hold while she considers a broader challenge to its legality.

The back and forth furthered the often angry debate between new Gov. Scott Walker, his Republican allies in the Legislature and the state's public sector unions.

Walker and the GOP have aggressively pushed forward their effort to remove the bargaining rights of state workers, using a surprise parliamentary maneuver to break a weeks-long stalemate to get it passed and then finding another route to publish the law after Sumi's order blocked the secretary of state from doing so.

State Department of Justice spokesman Steve Means said the agency continues to believe the law was properly published and is in effect. Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.

Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, Walker's top aide, issued a statement saying the agency will evaluate the judge's order.

"We will continue to confer with our legal counsel and have more information about how to move forward in the near future," Huebsch said.

The law requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also strips away their rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages.

Anyone else smell a case of 'judge shopping' going on here? Dane county? I would like to know when a county judge can overrule a state law.

The county judge has no jurisdiction..
This is most definitely judge shopping.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here comes the activist judge routine.

Facts trouble you?

Facts don't trouble me at all; but it seems that any time a judge makes a ruling against a Repub, that judge gets accused of being an activist.

But I can play that game as well. Shall I bring up Supreme Court Justice Thomas and Scalia? Thomas' wife is on the board of an anti health care reform group. Both Thomas and Scalia have participated in Tea Party events, paid for by opponents of health care reform. Since you're willing to dismiss this WI judge, I'm sure you believe that Thomas and Scalia should recuse themselves from any Supreme Court cases involving health care reform....right?

That is because liberal judges make no bones about their contempt for the legislative process and the will of the people.
Example....A Superior Court judge in Beaufort County SC quoted a historic figure when ruling against a homeowners association's authority to enforce rules within a gated community. That quote...."the tyranny of the majority"....This judge was a democrat and a large political contributor to democrat friends.
It is FACT that liberal judges often rule in opposition to legislation. Especially legislation passed by conservative majority bodies.
In fact, many liberal biased laws are not the result of legislation, they are the result of judicial rulings.
Your snit over Thomas and Scalia is nothing but tripe. Stow it.
Scalia and Thomas are strict constructionist judges. Sorry, you have to live under the heavy handedness of the very document that limits the power of government and guarantees freedom for all.
We conservatives fully realize you libs view the US Constitution as a roadblock to your radical leftist agenda

 

[Seawytch]

It only takes one....

26 states are within their legal rights to ignore 0bamacare....

Guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? How soon before the SCOTUS ends this once and for all? (Especially since the law is clearly Constitutional)

You're right. The WI law is.

Actually, we were discussing the Affordable Care Act, but if you want to discuss the constitutionality of the WI law, we can do that to.

Yes, it probably doesn't violate the Constitution, but that isn't why a stay has been placed on it. The way in which the law was passed violated state rules.

There is an easy fix...just go back and have the vote again in the daylight this time and with the appropriate notice first. Why is Wanker afraid to do that I wonder?

 

[Big Fitz]

Guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? How soon before the SCOTUS ends this once and for all? (Especially since the law is clearly Constitutional)

You're right. The WI law is.

Actually, we were discussing the Affordable Care Act, but if you want to discuss the constitutionality of the WI law, we can do that to.

Yes, it probably doesn't violate the Constitution, but that isn't why a stay has been placed on it. The way in which the law was passed violated state rules.

There is an easy fix...just go back and have the vote again in the daylight this time and with the appropriate notice first. Why is Wanker afraid to do that I wonder?

Sorry, no it didn't. Quorum is only needed for budgetary items. They stripped out the budget aspects of the bill, and therefore met rules under Rule 93.

They tried to do it "your way" but the reps ran away and violated their oath of office to serve the people of WI and show up for work.