Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, no doubt about it.

The bargaining that was forbidden included working conditions. The state will lose on appeal.

no. try again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darkwind, the state will try your argument, the judges will listen wide-eyed, crack up and have a good laugh, and overturn the state.

 

[Lakhota]

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."

Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.

Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down By County Judge

 

[Immanuel]

Judge strikes down Wisconsin law restricting union rights - U.S. News

Well, for a while the state enjoyed having a surplus instead of being in debt. The children enjoyed more teachers. I guess all good things must come to an end. This is all about the public unions, which in and of itself should be unconstitutional, and them getting benefits without having to contribute the same way the tax payers have to. They are privileged.

Shame on the State for enjoying a surplus at the expense of corrupt union BOSSES!

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

and they claim they are strict constitutionalists.

Its pretty telling.

Just like when they tried to kill the post office even though the founders were willing to pay for a national post.

 

[Lakhota]

NaziCons are only Constitutionalists when it supports their agendas.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Judge strikes down Wisconsin law restricting union rights - U.S. News

I am sure it is a lefty libtard judge, good luck on it standing, idiot.

 

[Truthmatters]

yes the judge did outline it yurt

 

[Wiseacre]

Since the Wisconsin SC is 5-4 conservative, I'd hazard a guess that the ruling made by the Dane County judge will be overturned and the law upheld, at least the basic parts. Be interesting to see if this case makes it to the SCOTUS and what they do about it, if anything.

 

[Yurt]

Yep, no doubt about it.

The bargaining that was forbidden included working conditions. The state will lose on appeal.

no. try again?

another liberal who can't explain why.

you saying so, doesn't mean it will be so. i know your mom tells you to be confident, but reality is, you need to explain why, not just give conclusions.

 

[Yurt]

yes the judge did outline it yurt

do you have a link to the opinion? i tried to find it and could not.

thanks.

 

[8537]

how does your cite back up your claim that it is unconstitutional? if i wanted more facts, i would have asked for more facts.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

 

[Yurt]

how does your cite back up your claim that it is unconstitutional? if i wanted more facts, i would have asked for more facts.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

what part of i don't need more facts do you not understand?

WHY is it unconstitutional??????? NOTE the question marks. i don't need a repeat of the decision, tell me why.

can you do that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt is ignoring the reality of what has explained to him several times.

Tis what tis.

 

[Yurt]

lmao....more starkey nothingness....

where was it explained stark? what post?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Darkwind, the state will try your argument, the judges will listen wide-eyed, crack up and have a good laugh, and overturn the state.

Sure Jake, because your predictions in the past have been oh so accurate.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

how does your cite back up your claim that it is unconstitutional? if i wanted more facts, i would have asked for more facts.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

And that makes it unconstitutional how?

 

[8537]

how does your cite back up your claim that it is unconstitutional? if i wanted more facts, i would have asked for more facts.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

what part of i don't need more facts do you not understand?

WHY is it unconstitutional??????? NOTE the question marks. i don't need a repeat of the decision, tell me why.

can you do that?

Q: Why is it unconstitutional?

A: Because it restricts the rights of state employees in an unconstitutional fashion. That's why. Namely, it removes their ability to bargain for any topics other than CoL.

I'm not sure how many different ways you want me to explain that. The explanation is virtually self-evident.

 

[8537]

how does your cite back up your claim that it is unconstitutional? if i wanted more facts, i would have asked for more facts.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

And that makes it unconstitutional how?

By removing rights of association and impeding rights of free speech. You can read all about it here: Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Ruling

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

what part of i don't need more facts do you not understand?

WHY is it unconstitutional??????? NOTE the question marks. i don't need a repeat of the decision, tell me why.

can you do that?

Q: Why is it unconstitutional?

A: Because it restricts the rights of state employees in an unconstitutional fashion. That's why. Namely, it removes their ability to bargain for any topics other than CoL.

I'm not sure how many different ways you want me to explain that. The explanation is virtually self-evident.

You keep getting the question because you're not answering it. We all know what you said. The question is why is restricting the privilege of state employees to bargain for anything other than their COLA unconstitutional? You simply just keep claiming that it is, but you apparently can't explain why.