Wisconsin Judge Halts Further Implementation Of Union Law (Again)

[Greenbeard]

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

Well, 25, since Vinson admitted he didn't know the implication of his ruling for Michigan. And for the brief period where that was true (before Vinson stayed his own ruling), that means 26 jurisdictions did fall under the ACA. Which means the federal-level activity (i.e. high-level policy setting and grantmaking to states) was still necessary and not in opposition to Vinson's ruling at all.

Those who take issue with the states who were part to that litigation and continued to implement the nuts-and-bolts of the ACA are missing the mark if they think that decision was made at the federal level.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

You think those asswipe FleeBaggers will stay and vote? Phukin Phunny.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

You think those asswipe FleeBaggers will stay and vote? Phukin Phunny.

So? Even if they don't, there is nothing stopping Wanker from having the SAME vote he already had in the dark of night and without notice, but this time in the daylight and with the appropriate advance notice, right? Oh, except for all those Republicans that are afraid of recall.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

You think those asswipe FleeBaggers will stay and vote? Phukin Phunny.

So? Even if they don't, there is nothing stopping Wanker from having the SAME vote he already had in the dark of night and without notice, but this time in the daylight and with the appropriate advance notice, right? Oh, except for all those Republicans that are afraid of recall.

How is holding a second vote going to change a damn thing? All the dems will vote no and lose. it puts them on record as being for the union over their constituents.

The law would still take effect. So what's the point, assuming the thought should even be entertained?

 

[Truthseeker420]

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

Sure, throw Obama, Salazar and that dipshit Sebilius in there with him.

for what?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Sure, throw Obama, Salazar and that dipshit Sebilius in there with him.

for what?

Ask Jilly the genius..
You libbies don't like when the shoe is on the other foot, do you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You think those asswipe FleeBaggers will stay and vote? Phukin Phunny.

So? Even if they don't, there is nothing stopping Wanker from having the SAME vote he already had in the dark of night and without notice, but this time in the daylight and with the appropriate advance notice, right? Oh, except for all those Republicans that are afraid of recall.

How is holding a second vote going to change a damn thing? All the dems will vote no and lose. it puts them on record as being for the union over their constituents.

The law would still take effect. So what's the point, assuming the thought should even be entertained?

Well for a couple of reasons:

1. Cost - Repealing the first passage and then passing the same law again renders the court case moot and ends it. Wisconsin taxpayers save the cost of proceeding with court costs through judgment, appeals, and probably finally to the WI Supreme Court.

2. Cost - Repassing the law again renders the court case moot, renders the injunction moot, and means that WI can start charging employees for their portion of retirement contributions.

3. Cost - Cost - Repassing the law again renders the court case moot, renders the injunction moot, and means that WI can start charging employees increased portions of health care insurance.​

Take the savings in (court battle + employee contributions to retirement + employee contributions to heal care) multiply times each state employee and you get Big Bucks.

Of course on the down side it puts Republicans on record for again attempting to bust the unions (Since the unions had already agreed to #2 and #3 above and an honest examination shows the actions are all about defunding a source of cash for contributions that historically go to Democrats). Now whether the voters will consider that a plus or a negative will depend on the success of recall petitions and the outcome of those votes.



BTW - before anyone makes an assumption: (a) I'm not a union member and (b) I'm not a Democrat.

>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

I suspect if you did do a second vote and pass it with dem no votes instead of no shows, the court battle woudl be the same.