March 31, 2011

Sumi says...

... what you thought she'd say.

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Fred4Pres said...

If this stands, Wisconsin will be in the lead of most screwed up states in the Union.

Chip S. said...

"Andrew Jackson on line 1, your honor."

Drew said...

Why hasn't Sumi recused herself due to her connections with the unions?

elliot said...

Have you, or will you, give a legal opinion on this Professor?

Shouting Thomas said...

The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it?

Chuck said...

This is an attempt by Sumi to make the legislative branch do this over. She is desperate in this attempt but I don't think the legislative branch will oblige.

Good! She has stirred this pot of crap, let her wallow in it.

garage mahal said...

But your honor we posted a link! And just look at this napkin I'm holding up with stuff written on it!

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

She says one thing, but writes another. Not good.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Is it normal to include a declaration like that in a restraining order? It seems that she is making an end-run around the fact that she can't restrain people who are not parties to the lawsuit.

Mr. D said...

And now you know why she warned the attorneys not to say anything negative. It's not polite to criticize a judge capable of altering the space/time continuum.

Thomas said...

If I were in Wisconsin, I'd look to get out. My perhaps naive view was that the upper-midwestern states--Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa--had pretty good governance. But Sumi is an embarrassment to judging. And I don't think she's atypical, based on the lack of controversy.

What does it mean to say that a law is not in effect? Does she mean that non-parties are bound to her determination of the law? Is she that dumb?

lawyapalooza said...

This is what I thought she would say, because it is consistent with the law, and she is a thoughtful, intelligent judge.

I have appeared before her at least 50 times. How many times have any of you?

damikesc said...

So, judges can just say "what I meant to say was..." and have their orders expanded to cover people not mentioned in any suit?

Walker should ignore her illegal order.

traditionalguy said...

Sumi has left off her judging job and has gone to agitating and issuing a fake decree that she clearly has no authority to make. Talk about disrespect for the law. A rogue political hac judge acting as if she is empowered to stop State Law enactments is truly shameful. She must expect Kloppenburg will cover her illegal acts for her on appeal.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, Althouse, there is no rule of law in Wisconsin, the police in Madison are extortionists, and the will of the people don't mean shit.

Your advice?

enicar333 said...

There once was a Judge named Sumi,
Who didn't realize she was puny,
She opened her mouth,
But only lies spewed out,
And now she has lost all her clout.

See those lowdown union shills,
Watch their shrieks become so shrill,
Behaving like a child all day,
They will all be gone by May.

Every minute of every day,
The public servants power slips away,
See them scream, hear them shout,
Citizens know what it is all about,
Watch their power fade away,
Soon they all shall go away.

There once was a man named Parrett,
Who aspired to be like Barrett,
He sent out a letter,
And should have known better,
Now he wears tar and feathers.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

At what point do the Wisconsin Supremes pull the plug on this circus? They can't be happy that she's making a mockery out of the Wisconsin judicial system.

Dale said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dale said...

No judge has the legal right to take the action she has. She is extrajudicial.

I could care less how nice she is. When she breaks the law, fuck the bitch.

It's time to buy guns. When you cannot trust the fucking courts to abide by the law, when the police are participating in union threats, it's time to buy guns.

Or, the people on the correct side of this could do what the fucking union thugs are doing, and make shit for Judge Sumi. The goddammned fucking unions believe in that shit. They started this. It's time to fuck their lives back.

Buy guns. Fuck the cunt judge.

former law student said...

And the reason the 'sconsin GOPpers don't simply repass the law, giving plenty of notice is what, exactly?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

While she's at it, could we get her to declare that Pi = 3? That would simplify things for a whole lot of students.

Also, I'd like my virginity back.

damikesc said...

As an aside, how can forced unionization not violate free assembly rights?

Don't people have rights to NOT assemble?

damikesc said...

Fls, note that a FL judge ruled Obamacare unconstitutional and provided ACTUAL rationale behind it.

It is being ignored.

Why should this joke of a judge he listened to? Its the states fault the hack is inept?

edutcher said...

Do it the Chicago Way. The courts say something you don't like, ignore it.

Little Zero does it all the time.

Drew said...

Why hasn't Sumi recused herself due to her connections with the unions?

Stuff like that only applies to Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers.

Lefties are ubermenschen, above such petty restrictions on their greatness.

TWM said...

"This is what I thought she would say, because it is consistent with the law, and she is a thoughtful, intelligent judge.

I have appeared before her at least 50 times. How many times have any of you?"

She hasn't even been consistent with herself, much less consistent with the law.

Drew said...

Where are the Republicans in all this? Didn't we vote them into office because we were tired of this kind of shit? It feels to me like they're just rolling over and resigning themselves to lose this fight. Do they have any plan at all to WIN?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

former law student said...

And the reason the 'sconsin GOPpers don't simply repass the law, giving plenty of notice is what, exactly?

Two reasons:

1) It would do no good. The law was passed and went into effect in a perfectly legal manner, and yet is being blocked by a baseless lawsuit. Why would passing it again not result in another baseless lawsuit?

2) It would be an extremely bad precedent, that would encourage more baseless lawsuits.

former law student said...

Why hasn't Sumi recused herself due to her connections with the unions?

The same reason Scalia did not recuse himself in Bush v. Gore despite his kids' working for Bush's law firms, and the same reason Scalia did not recuse himself in RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL., despite his being an old friend of Cheney and a (at that time) recent hunting buddy and Air Force Two passenger. Judges cannot live their lives in a vacuum, isolated from all human contact.

damikesc said...

Lawya, I would then believe that you are not terribly bright for this hack to wow you.

former law student said...

The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it?

Exactly. Walker's union-busting coup should have been submitted to the people of Wisconsin as a referendum.

damikesc said...

Its illegal to prevent publication of a news story...but legal to do that to a law?

WTF?

Shouting Thomas said...

Exactly. Walker's union-busting coup should have been submitted to the people of Wisconsin as a referendum.

fls, you are a tiresome jackass.

The only response is that Republicans will use the same brownshirt tactics your side has used if you win the next election.

You want war? Let's hope you get it.

rhhardin said...

King Canute (Cnut the Great, watch the typos) did his tide-halting act to prove to his fans that their estimation of his powers were misguided.

This modern Queen Canute does not remember the trick.

former law student said...

Sumi is essentially saying that the run did not score because Walker did not step on second base. Why does he not simply run back to second and rectify the problem?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I do think that, based on the new TRO the DOA will have to stop enforcing the law. That is, assuming such declarations in TROs have any legal weight.

damikesc said...

Fls, she has no ground to even make the decision based on precedent. She also seems alarmingly ignorant of the law.

former law student said...

Its illegal to prevent publication of a news story...but legal to do that to a law?

Laws are not speech -- words of a law have legal effect, they change people's rights and responsibilities.

damikesc said...

Given that the DOA isn't a party, nor was LRB, the tard's order is irrelevant.

Can anybody explain why anybody should listen to a judges ruling in WI, since they don't follow the law.

LawGirl said...

I have appeared before her at least 50 times. How many times have any of you?
I have. Not 50 times, but a few. Thoughtful? I'll give her that. Intelligent? Let's just say that my experience is that she does not seem to grasp the art and science of statutory constrtuction.

I think that, in my cases, she tried to be fair, but didn't really understand the law (nor truly seem to care much about it). She seemed to be applying more of a "gut-level justice," which is no justice at all, IMHO. If we don't all agree on a basic understanding of rules of the game before we enter the legal arena, the game is doomed to be unjust from the start, whatever the actual outcome. Anything could happen, with no need to justify it under applicalbe law.

I see that playing out here as well.

Quayle said...

Maybe she'll issue a bench warrant and order one of her union policemen to go over and arrest the Governor for violating her injunction.

Of course, she was only voted on by a county's worth of citizens, while the Governorship was only voted on by the people of the entire state.

But she wears that black robe, so that is... something.....I guess.

damikesc said...

Judges have no power, at all, to prevent publication of a law. That would make the courts too powerful.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

former law student said...

Sumi is essentially saying that the run did not score because Walker did not step on second base. Why does he not simply run back to second and rectify the problem?

Because everyone knows that he did step on second, and everyone knows that if he does run back to second to rectify the non-problem then she will say that he didn't step on first, or third, or that he left the baseline or something else.

former law student said...

Fls, she has no ground to even make the decision based on precedent. She also seems alarmingly ignorant of the law.

Fine. She will hear the case, and rule. Then her ruling will be appealed, and that ruling will be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Or, the Republicans could simply repass the bill.

Which path will chew up more of Wisconsinites' tax dollars, do you think?

Hint: it's not about saving tax money, it's about Walker's power.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, Wisconsin is really at war.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge they lost an election and must suffer the consequences.

As fls has stated, the Democrats will employ any ruse to overturn the results of the election.

The new standard is this... Republicans cannot take action on any issue after winning an election unless they win offer up issue on a referendum

Republicans... what do you do? I'd guess that the thug fls doesn't intend this standard to apply to Democrats when they win.

So, Democrats can act when they win an election. Republicans are forbidden to act when they win an election.

Or, by default, fls has proposed that Democrats win whether they win or lose the election.

Why should citizens obey the law in the government run on these terms?

Carol_Herman said...

You know, besides SUMI, there's another side issue, that shows the scales aren't in the democraps favor.

Obama's approval rating has slid down to 42%. How does this bode for this lady, and her hopes that Kloppen-frau bumps David Prosser off of the bench?

Glenn Reynolds linked to Professor Jacobson's unual post about SUMI trying to frighten counsel away from complaining about her openly.

What if this whole issue ends up being told in a book? Secrets pour out. Judges duck for cover. (Even when they're named Felix Frankfuter.) Because the comeuppance comes.

What's SUMI's window of opportunity, here?

Isn't it possible we see so much dirt being flung about ... because one side is more desperate than the other?

It's usually not so easy to kick a judge OFF a bench. Unless they really anger the public. Like Bird did in California. And, I'm told "Loophole Louis" Gableman, did in Wisconsin.

Who is more motivated to vote on April 5th? We shall see on Tuesday! The nation is watching.

Shouting Thomas said...

Hint: it's not about saving tax money, it's about Walker's power.

Hint, thug fls: It's about accepting the outcome of an election.

Why should Republicans agree to even abide by the law under these new "heads I win tails you lose" election rules you've created?

You're way of doing things is outright war. You're a thug. You've disgraced yourself.

traditionalguy said...

Dale...Why not use all of your anger to support the GOP candidates in Wisconsin elections. Threatening to use guns in electoral politics is not really a smart idea. To repeat those kinds of threats here makes you look like our newest Moby.

damikesc said...

If they do so, it gives tacit approval that a judge has this power in the first place.

She should be impeached.

former law student said...

The new standard is this... Republicans cannot take action on any issue after winning an election unless they win offer up issue on a referendum

Did the GOPPERs run on a union-busting platform? No.

Are the Republicans exceeding the implied limits of the grant of authority the voters gave them last November? Yes.

damikesc said...

Unlike Obama, Walker didn't pass something he campaigned against.

Shouting Thomas said...

Did the GOPPERs run on a union-busting platform? No.

Fuck you brownshirt thug. This is not a rule or law associated with American elections.

Are the Republicans exceeding the implied limits of the grant of authority the voters gave them last November? Yes.

Fuck you brownshirt thug. This is not a rule or law associated with American elections.

You've disgraced yourself thug.

former law student said...

If they do so, it gives tacit approval that a judge has this power in the first place.

That seems to be the current state of the law. Wisconsin's Supreme Court already decided that the Open Meetings Law applies to Legislature subcommittees. The state open meetings law requires the AG or local DA to take alleged violations to court.

damikesc said...

You're aware that Legislature rules trump Open Meetings Law, right?

You're aware not a single provision of the bill violates a single aspect of the Constitution, right?

Then what is the hack's beef?

Shouting Thomas said...

So, to ask the same question again that the thug fls tried to evade:

Why should Wisconsinites ever bother to obey the law and respect the state under his "heads we win, tails you lose" election rules?

I would suggest refusing to allow Democrats to even be seated after the next election. Seat their Republican opponents whether or not they win the election.

Real American said...

The state should just ignore her order. It's BS. This judge is a union leftist hack judge imposing her personal political beliefs and those of her son and their union masters.

LawGirl said...

Open meetings law violation - yawn.

19.87 Legislative meetings. This subchapter shall apply to
all meetings of the senate and assembly and the committees, subcommittees and other subunits thereof, except that:
. . . .
(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.


And, of course, Senate Rule 93 provides, in pertinent part:


Senate Rule 93
(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed..


So, how, exactly, did the legislature violate the open meetings law again?

Real American said...

Regular working people (i.e., not public employee union thugs) should storm the courthouse and prevent any proceedings from taking place, put up stupid signs and chant and bang drums and act like childish idiot retard leftoids until they get their way. Apparently, that's effective.

Real American said...

using authority she doesn't have hardly seems like acting within the law or being reasonable. This ruling is a predictable result of a leftist hack union thug owned judge. Nothing more, nothing less.

LawGirl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LawGirl said...

fls says: Fine. She will hear the case, and rule. Then her ruling will be appealed, and that ruling will be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Or, the Republicans could simply repass the bill.


You seem to be implying that, if the Republicans "simply" repass the bill . . . that new bill will not be subject to the same shaninigans as this one.

You're wrong. Passing the bill AGAIN would "simply" lead to an infinite loop of bill-passing/frivolous lawsuits.

4thGenerationBuck said...

The Tea Party should hold a protest on Judge Sumi's front yard. Apparently that tactic is now approved by the left.

TW - stanc - Her TRO sure did.

former law student said...

dami and lawgirl, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on this in State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d 662 (1976). (Legislature subcommittees subject to Open Meetings Law, violators must pay forfeitures.)

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

At some point in your law studies they must have covered the function of the legislative branch.

There's nothing in the Wisconsin constitution that says laws have to be submitted to referendum.

You want a referendum, get the signatures and put it on the ballot like everyone else has to who wants a referendum.

Oh, wait, there's no way to do that in Wisconsin.

So this "referendum" standard is totally made up by you. As is the standard "you can't make a law unless you campaigned on it".

When the Democrats are in the majority, expect Republicans to flee-bag and sue to block laws approved by the majority of the Legislature. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

traditionalguy said...

Lawgirl's comment rings true of bad trial judges that I have seen in action. They will make legally impossible rulings to let the Lawyers know they are the boss. It is saying to the lawyer being one upped, "Your client will not spend the time and money to appeal this illegal act of mine, so I've gotcha". So it is no wonder that she threatened the lawyers to keep quiet about her conduct here. Word to the wise: it is this type of judicial conduct that means that the Judge doing it also sells out cases for money under the table. After all, who can oppose such a power scam based on secret deals...until someone who has paid them off complains.

lawyapalooza said...

See, the thing you all keep ignoring, including you, LawGirl, is that the nonpartisan entity that placed the law on its website explicitly informed Walker and anyone else who will read more than a blog that its action in posting the law had no legal impact.

What? Nonpartisan lawyers who are specifically charged with advising the Legislature as to the impact of proposed legislation actually analyzed the act in the same way Sumi did? How dare they? Must be leftist thugs (can you guys come up with something more original than that phrase or bitch).

Anyone who claims this issue is simple is simplistic and ignorant. Circuit court judges are charged with making initial determinations subject to review by a higher court. Not only is Sumi's judgment in this case legally supportable, it is the same position that many independent lawyers and advisers to the Legislature have come to. Ultimately, it could be overturned, but if so, it will not be because it was an obvious error or contrary to precedent.

The real reason Walker and the Fitzers won't simply provide proper notice and revote is that they know they no longer have the votes to pass it. Pure and simple, and Fitzgerald said as much to Greta Van Sustern. Apparently when the people (and the legislators) learned about the ridiculous provisions in this bill, they made their displeasure known. And that, my friends, is what democracy should have looked like from the very beginning, rather than trying to shove a 1,000+ page bill through without sufficient time for public review and comment.

TMink said...

"It's time to buy guns. When you cannot trust the fucking courts to abide by the law, when the police are participating in union threats, it's time to buy guns."

Guns I got.

Its tar and feathers I need.

Trey

damikesc said...

Incorrect. It is inapplicable here.

TMink said...

"The Tea Party should hold a protest on Judge Sumi's front yard."

We just don't do that. It is beneath us. We will continue to grow and thrive and help her retire early though.

Trey

Gabriel Hanna said...

@lawyapalooza:

rather than trying to shove a 1,000+ page bill through without sufficient time for public review and comment.

If weeks of huge protests and discussion of nothing else in local media DOESN'T qualify for sufficent public review, what the hell does?

The law was posted in accordance with the open meetings law, with the 2 hour notice provided for unusual circumstances.

Shouting Thomas said...

There's nothing in the Wisconsin constitution that says laws have to be submitted to referendum.

But, as fls says: "Heads I win, tails you lose."

So this "referendum" standard is totally made up by you. As is the standard "you can't make a law unless you campaigned on it".

But, as fls says: "Heads I win, tails you lose."

You see, fls really, really, really, doesn't like what the Republicans did. And, they're Republicans. So, as fls says: "Heads I win, tails you lose."

He don't have to abide by no stinking elections.

Shouting Thomas said...

And that, my friends, is what democracy should have looked like from the very beginning, rather than trying to shove a 1,000+ page bill through without sufficient time for public review and comment.

So, I gather you're in favor of revoking Obamacare?

Or is "what democracy should have looked like from the very beginning" translated: "Heads I win, tails you lose?"

So, you refuse to abide by the results of an election, too.

LawGirl said...

fls said: dami and lawgirl, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on this in State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta, 71 Wis. 2d 662 (1976). (Legislature subcommittees subject to Open Meetings Law, violators must pay forfeitures.)

I'm not going to go research whether the relevant law in 1976 contained the exception in today's open meetings law nor whether that case is on point (I'm guessing one or both of these propositions will prove untrue), until you explain to me why Wis. Stats. 19.87(2) somehow does not mean what I think it means.

As a refresher:
19.87(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

And, of course, Senate Rule 93 does not require the same amount of notice as Wis. Stats. 19.81 et seq. In fact, all it requires is posting on the legislative bulletin board. E-mailing the AWOL senators was a courtesy.

wv: silla. fls's argument is just plain silla.

former law student said...

There's nothing in the Wisconsin constitution that says laws have to be submitted to referendum.

I was just agreeing with st's The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it? Not when Republicans control the legislature and the governorship. Then they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.

former law student said...

lawgirl, reading cases is how we learn about the law.

I already posted this so I will just copy paste a summary of the rationale the Wis Sup Ct used:

Courts have power to investigate if the legislature has exceeded its jurisdiction, In re Falvey (1858), 7 Wis. 528. Courts have power to construe statutes: The legislature limited its power to change their rules of proceedings even when embodied in statutes, by declaring its intent to comply to the fullest extent with the open meetings law, and by making itself liable for violations with forfeitures, in order to preserve representative government by fully informing the electorate, in conformance with article IV, section 10 of the Wisconsin constitution.

Shouting Thomas said...

I was just agreeing with st's The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it? Not when Republicans control the legislature and the governorship. Then they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.

You're speaking for yourself, thug. You're just one voter.

The voters of the state of Wisconsin elected Walker and a Republican assembly.

And, you refuse to abide by the election, which makes you a thug.

I say, after the next election, under your rules, Republicans are justified in using physical force to prevent any Democrats from being seated in the governorship or the assembly.

Note the key phrase this brazen thug uses:

Not when Republicans control the legislature and the governorship.

All rules are off when this brazen thug loses.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

The will of the voters is expressed through their duly elected representatives in Wisconsin. They don't HAVE referendums.

Now you want to just totally make up constitutional provisions. You don't get to do that.

You didn't bother to even look that up before you shot your mouth off. You can't conjure legislative powers out of thin air through the force of moral indignation, jackass.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

Then they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.

Yes. So can Congress. That's the goddamned LAW, jackass.

Where was our referendum on invading Libya? We don't get one. If we don't like what Congress and the President do, we have to elect new ones. Jackass.

lawyapalooza said...

"If weeks of huge protests and discussion of nothing else in local media DOESN'T qualify for sufficent public review, what the hell does?"

It does qualify for sufficient public review, which is why the legislature now can't pass it! What they tried to do, of course, was to shove it down everyone's throats without understanding the impact. Now that time has passed and the bill has been proerly vetted, they can't pass it, because the very republicans who were willin gto march to Walker's orders are no longer willing to do so.

Robert said...

I would just like to point out that this is Sumi's third effort at a TRO, she still has not ruled on the arguments' merits, and she today did what she explicitly did not do on Tuesday.

Go to legalinsurrection.com for an image of the Tuesday order, in which she struck the language stating that the Act is not in effect.

So it was in effect on Tuesday, but not as of 8:15 a.m. today?

She'll go down as the next Anna Diggs Taylor, only inept as well as overtly partisan.

LawGirl said...

fls said: lawgirl, reading cases is how we learn about the law.


This explains a lot about your analytical methods. You're WRONG. Reading constitutions and statutes (you know, black letter law) is how we learn about the law. Reading case law only helps when the black letter law is unclear, whether on its face, or as applied.

I still have not heard how 19.87(2) - black letter law - does not mean what I think it means.

AST said...

When does her term run out? Is anybody collecting signatures for a recall on her?

Is there a public employee's union for judges?

After reading Michael Barone's piece yesterday, I'm more alarmed about the state of the country than I've been for a long time.

Shouting Thomas said...

It does qualify for sufficient public review, which is why the legislature now can't pass it! What they tried to do, of course, was to shove it down everyone's throats without understanding the impact. Now that time has passed and the bill has been proerly vetted, they can't pass it, because the very republicans who were willin gto march to Walker's orders are no longer willing to do so.

Another damned thug.

Democrats don't have to abide by the results of elections.

We've heard that shit a thousand times. Do you want to settle things with guns and bombs, idiot?

former law student said...

19.81(3)
(3) In conformance with article IV, section 10, of the constitution, which states that the doors of each house shall remain open, except when the public welfare requires secrecy, it is declared to be the intent of the legislature to comply to the fullest extent with this subchapter.

19.81(4)
(4) This subchapter shall be liberally construed to achieve the purposes set forth in this section, and the rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed shall be limited to the enforcement of forfeitures and shall not otherwise apply to actions brought under this subchapter or to interpretations thereof.

Construing the statute, the Wis Sup Ct concluded that the legislature cannot make these sweeping statements in the beginning, and yet weasel out of them in 19.87.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@lawyapalooza:Now that time has passed and the bill has been proerly vetted, they can't pass it, because the very republicans who were willin gto march to Walker's orders are no longer willing to do so.

They passed it once already, fully legally, according to the open meetings provision that only requires 2 hours notice in unusual circumstances.

Having to pass it AGAIN is bullshit. Someone like you will gin up another phony reason to sue, and then you will say "apss it again".

And of course it will never come to a vote because the Democrats will flee the state again!

This is all so obvious.

lawyapalooza said...

@ LawGirl. Have you even bothered to read the analysis provided by the Legislative Reference Bureau?

Have any of you?

Or should I just argue the way most of you do: thug, thug, thug, bitch, FLS thug, lefties riots hippies thugs thugs thugs.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

Nice job quoting the statute, now why don't you find the part that says Wisconsin has a referendum process, jackass.

roesch-voltaire said...

Lawyap- nice to read your comments here as you join the discussion with reasoned evidence to counter some of the slug shouts. As you pointed out the reason Walker will not try to pass the bill again is because he cannot get enough votes this time. And if the public had been aware of all the elements of this bill, it would not have passed the first time, as seen by the once Republicans who now have second thoughts about Walker.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@lawyapalooza:

Your only prescription is "pass bill over and over until lawyers are too tired too file lawsuits against it", which is a totally imaginary standard.

It is incredibly stupid to go down this road unless you want these tacics used against you when Democrats regaint he majority.

Shouting Thomas said...

Or should I just argue the way most of you do: thug, thug, thug, bitch, FLS thug, lefties riots hippies thugs thugs thugs.

Well, it's true. You're a thug who refuses to accept the results of an election.

So, do you want to just return to settling things with bombs and guns?

We get that you really, really, really hate the legislation. I really hate Obamacare.

Do you think it's better to settle these things with bombs and guns? That's where your thug tactics lead.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@roesch-voltaire:As you pointed out the reason Walker will not try to pass the bill again is because he cannot get enough votes this time.

He doesn't need too-it already passed once. There is nothing in Wisconsin laws that say bills have to be repassed until no one can think of another bogus reason to sue.

They complied with the two-hour notice provision of the open meetings law. The law is passed. A lawsuit against the law measn nothing.

Again, are you prepared to defend these tactics when your party regains the majority and the tactics are used against them?

Shouting Thomas said...

Well, lowlife commie, roesch-voltaire, it's no surprise that you too refuse to abide by election results.

So, you also propose to resolve these things with guns and bombs.

We get your chucklehead argument. Democrats don't have to abide by elections, especially when the results are really disliked.

I would suggest that Republican voters adopt the tactics of the commie, roesch-voltaire. No tactics are off limits.

And, you are a teacher. You should be fired. Immediately. On the basis of your comments in this blog.

garage mahal said...

This could all be solved easily by re-noticing and re-voting on the bill. The silent majority would appreciate that too I would think. It's obvious this judge can't be trusted. She shops at gourmet organic food stores. What the fuck!?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

fls-

You are correct that the courts can enforce the Open Meetings law against the legislature via fines or other penalties. What the courts can't do is overturn the laws passed in those meetings.

In La Follette v. Stitt ( 114 Wis. 2d 358 (1983)), the court said: “If the legislature fails to follow self-adopted procedural rules in enacting legislation, and such rules are not mandated by the constitution, courts will not intervene to declare the legislation invalid.”

Shouting Thomas said...

This could all be solved easily by re-noticing and re-voting on the bill. The silent majority would appreciate that too I would think. It's obvious this judge can't be trusted. She shops at gourmet organic food stores. What the fuck!?

Another low-life thug who refuses to abide by the results of elections.

What is to be expected of the low-life, garbage?

former law student said...

now why don't you find the part that says Wisconsin has a referendum process

13.175 Referenda. Every proposal for legislation which is to be submitted to the voters for their approval or for an expression of their opinion including, without limitation because of enumeration, proposed constitutional amendments, advisory referenda, and legislation designed to become effective only after ratification by the voters shall include a complete statement of the referendum question upon which the voters shall be requested to vote in the form prescribed under s. 5.64 (2). No such proposal shall be passed by either house of the legislature unless it contains the precise wording of the referendum question which is to be submitted to the voters for their approval, expression of opinion or ratification.

LawGirl said...

fls, I looked up STATE EX REL. LYNCH v. CONTA, 71 Wis.2d 662 (1976) just for kicks and giggles, and note that they discussed two exceptions to the open meetings statute (meetings of partisan causcases and meetings relating to the enactment of legislative rules) - neither of which is close to the one currently codified at 19.87(2). Not only that, but hte court's last line sums up its opinion, and acknowledges that there are exceptions to teh open meetings law (even back then):

By the Court. — It is declared and adjudged that sec. 66.77, Stats., is applicable to legislative proceedings subject to certain expressed statutory exceptions. It is further adjudged that the respondents and necessary parties respectively were not in violation of said statute on March 11, 1975 and April 24, 1975.

So, how does this case help you, exactly?

Shouting Thomas said...

Again, are you prepared to defend these tactics when your party regains the majority and the tactics are used against them?

No, he'll shift tactics immediately and cry about how mean Republicans are.

Robert said...

Can one of you law types summarize the downside of a GOP strategy to let it play out in the courts? I am aware of two:

1. Unions might get new or extended contracts avoiding the law's effect while all of this plays out.

2. There might be a change in the WI supreme court before the case reaches it.

What else?

former law student said...

Stitt didn't overturn Conta though.

kate said...

They passed it once already, fully legally, according to the open meetings provision that only requires 2 hours notice in unusual circumstances....

And of course it will never come to a vote because the Democrats will flee the state again!


They actually didn't give 2-hours notice. It was in the testimony from Tuesday. There's no need for the Dems to leave the state again - they've accomplished what they set out to do, which was to allow vetting of the bill. That's happened. They're not going anywhere.

lawyapalooza said...

"Your only prescription is "pass bill over and over until lawyers are too tired too file lawsuits against it", which is a totally imaginary standard."


No, my prescription is to:

1. provide public notice consistent with the laws of Wisconsin

2. Allow adequate time for public hearing and debate.

3. Provide each legislator the opportunity to vote, whether or not a majority has already been reached.

4. Publish the law properly.

Had the Fitz boys followed that simple prescription, the law would be valid and while people could still bitch about it, aside from recall votes, they couldn't seek redress. The above process has been followed hundreds of times a year, for decades. They know how to do it legally, and they did not do so in this case. As a consequence, people had the time to study the bill, and it apparently will not pass on a clean vote.

These rules apply equally to Democrats, Republicans, and hippie thug legislators.

former law student said...

lawgirl -- I assume that means paralegal? The Conta court decided that courts had jurisdiction over this matter, and that the open meetings law applied to legislative subcommittees, but in this particular case the meeting fell under the partisan caucus exception.

lawyapalooza said...

"So, how does this case help you, exactly?"

Because the meetings were not caucuses and were not creating legislative rules, the exceptions to the open meetings law. And your cited exception to open meetings law in this case is?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls: The law you cited is irrelevant; the referendum is at the option of the legislature, and citizens do not have the power to initiate one. The referendum must be written into the law from the beginning, at the legislature's option.

Now wonder you left law school.

Again, you cannot summon consitutional provisions out of the ass of your indignation, jackass.

LawGirl said...

fls said: Construing the statute, the Wis Sup Ct concluded that the legislature cannot make these sweeping statements in the beginning, and yet weasel out of them in 19.87.


If you're talking about Conta, you should get a fire extinguisher ready - because your pants are on fire.

If you're not taking about Conta, you should try to be clearer about which opinion you're referring to, when there are so many different judicial opinions being discussed. Context makes it appear that you are talking about Conta here.

Shouting Thomas said...

Again, you cannot summon consitutional provisions out of the ass of your indignation, jackass.

Well, now, they've got one other tactic:

They problem isn't that the Democrats fled the state to try to prevent voting.

The problem is... well, whatever the hell they want to make up at the moment.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@lawyapalooza:

Your buillshit checklist:

1. Done. Two hours notice in unusual circumstances

2. Done, there were weeks of protests and argument

3. Only a quorum is required by law, the fleebaggers would have had time to vote if they hadn;t run to Illinois. You want to make up laws like fls.

4. Done.

You have triumphantley refuted yourself.

@kate

they had two hours notice, if the fleebaggers had been in the capitol they'd have seen it posted on the board two hours before the vote. Since they ran to illinois, they had to hear about it by email. Their own fault.

former law student said...

the referendum is at the option of the legislature, and citizens do not have the power to initiate one. The referendum must be written into the law from the beginning, at the legislature's option.

Gabe, I thought I had been clear upthread:

The will of the voters don't mean shit in Wisconsin, does it?

Exactly. Walker's union-busting coup should have been submitted to the people of Wisconsin as a referendum.


Walker's. Union-busting coup. should. have. been. submitted. to the people of Wisconsin. as a referendum.

LawGirl said...

lawyap says: Because the meetings were not caucuses and were not creating legislative rules, the exceptions to the open meetings law. And your cited exception to open meetings law in this case is?


SIGH . . . are you being deliberately thick? How many times do I need to post the same statute and same argument? I'm talking about Wis. Stast. sec. 19.87(2).

Borrowing from my own earlier post:

19.87 Legislative meetings. This subchapter shall apply to
all meetings of the senate and assembly and the committees, subcommittees and other subunits thereof, except that:
. . . .
(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.


And, of course, Senate Rule 93 provides, in pertinent part:



Senate Rule 93
(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.

(3) The daily calendar is in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.


So, how, exactly, did the legislature violate the open meetings law again?

LawGirl said...

Robert says: "2. There might be a change in the WI supreme court before the case reaches it.

Actually, this seems unlikely. Prosser is there until at least August, no matter what happens on April 5.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

former law student said...

Stitt didn't overturn Conta though.

I never said it did. It did, however, make clear that the redress for and Open Meetings violation does not include voiding the law. So Judge Sumi's TRO goes against clear, on-point binding precedent.

LawGirl said...

putative "former" law student said: lawgirl -- I assume that means paralegal?

And I assume "former" is a typographical error. 1L?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

Why? Only because you, who don;t live in WI IIRC correctly, want to impose an after-the-fact standard to legislation you don't like. Jackass.

The will of the voters is expressed, in WI, by their elected representatives. You must have been sleeping the day they covered representative democracy in class.

Maguro said...

Walker's. Union-busting coup. should. have. been. submitted. to the people of Wisconsin. as a referendum.

Um...why?

Just because you don't like it isn't an answer.

And "coup"? Please, enough of the drama queen theatrics. Embarrassing.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@lawgirl:

You will have to post the law over and over again, just like the legislature has to pass the bill over and over again.

Because the Left is entitled to outcomes, not procces.

Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shoutingthomas said...

Walker's. Union-busting coup. should. have. been. submitted. to the people of Wisconsin. as a referendum.

Wasn't it just pointed out to you, thug, that Wisconsin doesn't have a referendum process?

Robert said...

Thanks, LawGirl.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@st: We have referenda in WI at the pleasure of the Legislature.

I used to live in Washington, which has a citizen-intiated referendum process, unlike WI.

Hence my challenge to fls, "get the signatures", which doesn;t work in WI.

former law student said...

Lawgirl seems to have a problem briefing cases; here is the nugget from Conta:

In summation, sec. 66.77, Stats., was clearly applicable to the joint finance committee. The committee is required to conduct its meetings under the open session requirements, including public notice and advance announcement of closed sessions, when it is formally constituted and thereby possesses the vitality to act effectually on governmental business.

The open meetings law was renumbered in 1976

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Walker's. Union-busting coup. should. have. been. submitted. to the people of Wisconsin. as a referendum.

You mean. Just like Doyle's. $1B tax increasing. teacher's union QEO dissolving. illegal funds borrowing. plans were submitted. as a referendum?

I. didn't. think. so.

garage mahal said...

Hence my challenge to fls, "get the signatures", which doesn;t work in WI.

Actually tens of thousands of signatures are being collected as we speak. And it's working, albeit in a different way. And leaving perfectly good jobs to jump off the cliff for Walker will prove to be a huge mistake.

Jay said...

Walker's union-busting coup should have been submitted to the people of Wisconsin as a referendum.


The state of WI's contribution to public sector unions should be submitted to the people of Wisconsin as a referendum.

kate said...

they had two hours notice, if the fleebaggers had been in the capitol they'd have seen it posted on the board two hours before the vote. Since they ran to illinois, they had to hear about it by email. Their own fault.

No. Dem. Assembly leader Barca WAS in the building and at the conference committee meeting, where they voted with less than 2-hours notice...as testified to on Tuesday. The issue here is the time between when the notice was given and when the vote was taken, not that the senators were not present or couldn't be present.

Jay said...

Walker's. Union-busting coup. should. have. been. submitted. to the people of Wisconsin. as a referendum.


I bet you were saying the same thing when Obama bailed out GM and signed a health insurance mandate.

One thing you never stop doing is revealing yourself as a hypocrite and beclowing yourself.

Jay said...

kate said...


You were just in the other thread saying this dipstick judge wasn't trying to block anything.

former law student said...

Ig -- can you show me where Stitt relates to a violation of the Open Meetings Law? Further, Stitt states it applies only to legislative rules not in violation of the State constitution, while the Open Meetings law is meant to conform with article IV, section 10 of the Wisconsin constitution. So Stitt would seem to be irrelevent here.

lawyapalooza said...

"Senate Rule 93
(2) A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.


Sigh. You are either thick or deliberately distracting people from the real issue! Must I address this again?

The committee at issue is a joint committee to resolve conflicts of bills passed by the assembly and senate. Thus, it is not governed by the rule you cite, which applies only to senate committees.

Additionally, the joint committee must develop a joint bill that reconciles differences between bills passed in each house. The assembly and senate bills were grossly different because the senate peeled out almost all of the bill.

You are flat wrong on this one. What kind of law did you say you practice? Please tell me you do not advise municipalities.

Go ahead though, non-lawyers, and tell me I'm wrong. Even the DOJ has basically given up on this argument.

Jay said...

they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.


So you were complaining when Obamacare was passed, right hypocrite?

damikesc said...

Lawya, given that the Senate hadn't passed the bill at all...you know, due to the fleebaggers...it wasn't a Joint Committee.

Jay said...

There's no need for the Dems to leave the state again - they've accomplished what they set out to do, which was to allow vetting of the bill.

Hysterical.

Yeah, that is what they set out to do, you silly little liar.

former law student said...

Wisconsin Constitution

ARTICLE IV. LEGISLATIVE.


SECTION 10. [Journals; open doors; adjournments.] Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same, except such parts as require secrecy. The doors of each house shall be kept open except when the public welfare shall require secrecy. Neither house shall, without consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.

Canuck said...

"Or should I just argue the way most of you do: thug, thug, thug, bitch, FLS thug, lefties riots hippies thugs thugs thugs."

hey, you forgot cunt bitch [add in other misogynistic insults that multiple people have listed on this page] and threats to take armed action against a judge.

stay classy.

FB said...

I've been watching and researching all the activities 170 miles away down I-94, and I do have several questions. Perhaps you in the know about WI law would help me out?

1. Are the laws and statutes in the state so vague as to allow completely different interpretations based on a person's perspective? The open meeting law seems obvious to me, but without giving you my view, I'd hesitate to say you could guess.

2. Could the legislature starting the process of passing the bill over again be interpreted as allowing the judicial branch to have control or approval powers on how the legislature passes a bill? If so, I don't see how the republican party can do the "easy" thing and re-process the bill without implied agreement to a court intervening in the legislative process.

3. Would anyone want to vote for any supreme court justice who would rather put a political party's platform in a positive light when compared to the letter of the law?

It would seem to me that in an ideal world, the election for a supreme court judge should have little impact on an individual bill. Indications that it might should concern all parties involved, including the party that "wins".

I look forward to your responses.

LawGirl said...

fls says: Lawgirl seems to have a problem briefing cases; here is the nugget from Conta:

In summation, sec. 66.77, Stats., was clearly applicable to the joint finance committee. The committee is required to conduct its meetings under the open session requirements, including public notice and advance announcement of closed sessions, when it is formally constituted and thereby possesses the vitality to act effectually on governmental business.

The open meetings law was renumbered in 1976

I have no trouble understanding both the reasoning and ruling of Conta, but it is clear you do . . . Conta did not discuss the exception at issue here and it ultimately found that the legislative meeting at issue in Conta did NOT violate the open meetings law.

I'm not going to re-post my quote of the Conta Court's ruling; re-posting becase you ignore prior comments is getting tediuous.

former law student said...

they can pass any damnfool thing they want, irrespective of what the voters want.


So you were complaining when Obamacare was passed, right hypocrite?


Here's Obama's campaign speech promising he'd sign a universal health care bill. Now, find me Walker's campaign speech promising he'd sign a union-busting bill:

A Politics of Conscience
Hartford, CT | June 23, 2007

It's great to be here. I've been speaking to a lot of churches recently, so it's nice to be speaking to one that's so familiar.
...

Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

fls said...

Ig -- can you show me where Stitt relates to a violation of the Open Meetings Law? Further, Stitt states it applies only to legislative rules not in violation of the State constitution, while the Open Meetings law is meant to conform with article IV, section 10 of the Wisconsin constitution. So Stitt would seem to be irrelevent here.

Stitt relates to the open meetings law because the open meetings law regulates meetings of the legislature. Stitt does only apply to legislative rules, not violations of the state constitution. Yes, the open meetings law is meant to and does conform with article IV, section 10 of the Wisc. Constitution. That does not in any way imply that the specific rules in the open meetings law are required by the constitution. Hence Stitt applies.

Sofa King said...

You guys realize, regardless of whether the open meetings law was properly followed or not, it cannot prevent the bill from becoming law.

The open meetings law is a statute, enacted by the legislature. As such, it can be repealed, or set aside, explicitly or implicitly, by the legislature.

No legislature can restrict the legislative power of a future legislature. It simply isn't possible for a previous legislature to have forbidden the current legislature from passing a bill into law.

There is no sound legal theory by which previous *legislation* could prevent the passage of the current legislation.

damikesc said...

Umm, Obama specifically campaigned against an individual mandate.

roesch-voltaire said...

Shouting nice to see you are Part of the New Republican Order that wants to censor my views, but I have never mentioned guns, only you seem hung up on that. I guess this is your brownshirt persona?

Gabriel said...

@fls:

Where does it say you may only pass laws you campaign on passing?

When did Obama campaign on starting wars without Congressional approval? When did he campaign on keeping GTMO open? When did he campaign on signing the PATRIOT act into law?

Once again, you just totally make up a standard after the fact that applies only to people you don't like.

Jackass.

Shouting Thomas said...

roesch-voltaire said...
Shouting nice to see you are Part of the New Republican Order that wants to censor my views, but I have never mentioned guns, only you seem hung up on that. I guess this is your brownshirt persona?


You won't abide by the results of an election.

You're a thug.

You're a sophist who keeps trying to turn this equation on its head.

You're a commie who should not be employed by any educational institution.

garage mahal said...

Where does it say you may only pass laws you campaign on passing?

Confucius say short & misleading campaign promises makes for longer recall lines. And the longer the picket line the shorter the strike.

former law student said...

This is the key point of the Conta Court' rationale that lawgirl keeps skipping over:

This court is being asked to construe a statute, not to interfere with the functions or the separate power of the legislative branch of government. In construing the statutes as a whole, it is necessary to hold that the legislative intended sec. 66.77 to apply to legislators and legislative committees, subject to expressed statutory exceptions. The creation of sec. 66.77 (4) (g) and (h) would be superfluous if the legislators were not bound by the 699*699 open meeting law. Rules of construction dictate against such interpretation.

So, the legislature publicly bound itself to follow the open meetings law and it later spelled out penalties for its own failure to comply. What we now know as 19.87(2) can't be used as a loophole because such an exception could easily be expanded to swallow the rule. It would be like a bridegroom, promising to forsake all others, saying under his breath, "Except on Tuesdays." The rules of statutory construction will read such an exception out of the statute if it conflicts with the expressed purpose.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@garage:

Confucius say short & misleading campaign promises makes for longer recall lines.

Looking forward to canceling your vote.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@garage:

And looking forward to your vote against Obama in the primary.

garage mahal said...

Looking forward to canceling your vote

You can't vote in Wisc.

So +1

former law student said...

The open meetings law is a statute, enacted by the legislature. As such, it can be repealed, or set aside, explicitly or implicitly, by the legislature.

Not according to Conta. Justice Hansen's dissent, which thought the majority did not go far enough, and would have eliminated the partisan caucus exception, makes the rationale against this position clear.


The state constitution in our state makes such self-exclusion from an antisecrecy law meaningless. The majority states that our legislature has made the exceptions and "... drafted them to its own purposes." The state constitution does provide that: "Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings,"[10] but that right is subject to and limited in our state by the constitutional mandate that doors of the legislature be kept open during the lawmaking process. It is not correct to assume or imply that, if our state legislature had exempted itself from the provisions of its open meeting law, it could conduct its lawmaking function in secret. A constitutional mandate does not need legislative reenactment to remain operable.

Almost Ali said...

It is clear that Judge Sumi is also qualified to take on the War Powers Act.

And the sooner, the better.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

and sometimes I write about law

It's interesting that Althouse has so far declined to comment on this case. Especially after noting every twist and turn.

VanderDouchen said...

Your Peewee Herman reference looks so much more enlightening to me, after having read the comments posted over there.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Things are not going to end well, either in WI or elsewhere.

WV: resti

No resti for the weary.

Shouting Thomas said...

Aw, poor roesch-voltaire is worried about having his free speech rights curtailed.

But, he doesn't care that the Republicans won the election.

You see, roesch-voltaire, you are a commie. Rights are just something to bitch about when you want to game the system. Rights are fungible if your opponent might win.

You're a commie, and you're only concern is the game the system so that you get what you want.

So, why should I care about your rights?

Sofa King said...

Ah, FLS, that might be relevant if the meeting was actually conducted in secret. Then you might, arguably, have a constitutional violation. But nobody is contending that the meeting was not open to the public, only that insufficient notice was given. But there is no constitutional obligation for *notice.*

Pat Moffitt said...

Does this law impact the judge"s health and retirement benefits and if so would this be a conflict?

Mutaman said...

Hey Anne, nice intellectual discussion you goy going here. You should be proud of your posters.

Got to give the judge credit for the way she succeeded in causing the head of every reactionary here to explode.

My advice to you guys: Less time on the range, more time in the library.

madawaskan said...

Canuck

Well that commenter is new around here. Maybe some people want to argue other things-instead of "moby or moby not". Of course the Left dreamt up that tactic to take advantage of those on the Right that believe in free speech.

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

former law student-

Could you not argue that the doors were open?

Sumi actually addressed the specifics of the fact that the doors were open but that access was restricted, restricted by the police, and because of the liberal mob shenanigans.

I'm sure they actions of the mob are above and below the law though....

Quite literally "mob rule".

madawaskan said...

I'm sure *the* actions...

madawaskan said...

Maybe I should have wrote-

Moby rule...

Joe said...

Wisconsin lawyers: is there a provision in the law to challenge a judge's claimed jusrisdiction? It seems some people are saying that the government can't appeal until Sumi is does, but it seems she can keep spinning out orders and so forth without ever being done. Surely, there is a legal method to stop out-of-control judges.

Calypso Facto said...

fls said: So, the legislature publicly bound itself to follow the open meetings law and it later spelled out penalties for its own failure to comply. emphasis added

Those penalties do not include preemption or nullification of statutes, so what's the point? Fining Fitzgerald?

former law student said...

nice try sofa

From Conta

At the point of bringing the governmental body to its collective existence, the members are faced with compliance with the open session requirement. If those responsible for calling the meeting have done their duty, a proper site and advance public notice would be procured. Should a deficiency be noted, the body is forbidden to proceed, even informally, with its business.

madawaskan said...

Joe

Van Hollen the AG of WI had an appeal to the 1st or 4th district appeals court-they kicked it up to the WI Supreme Court.

Although I think much of that argument centered on the Secretary of State.

madawaskan said...

Well again former law student even Sumi seemed to think that the notice issue was subordinate the the restricted access issue.

former law student said...

19.97(3)
(3) Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.

former law student said...

mada: tell sofa he's asking the wrong questions.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@garage mahal:

You can't vote in Wisc.

I'm a Wisconsin resident and an American citizen.

+0

madawaskan said...

At least four of the seven Supreme Court justices must agree to take the case. Tom Sheehan, a spokesman for the court, said no timeline for a vote has been established.

One of the seven high court members, Justice David Prosser Jr., faces re-election in April. He served as a Republican member of the state assembly for 17 years and was appointed to the court in 1998 by former Governor Tommy Thompson. In 2001, he was elected to a full 10-year term.

The Supreme Court, if it takes the case, wouldn’t necessarily be limited to addressing the issues framed by the appellate court, said attorney Robert J. Dreps, a member of the political law group at Godfrey & Kahn SC in Madison.

Other Issues

“There are a lot of other issues raised,” Dreps said. “The Supreme Court can decide to address any of them.”

A decision by either the Supreme Court or the Appeals Court won’t mean that the case is over, he said. There is still a question of whether Sumi could impose penalties on the four Republican legislators who attended the joint committee meeting that Ozanne claims violated the state law.

State law allows for fines of $25 to $300 if they “knowingly attended” an illegal meeting, Dreps said.

Two Democratic lawmakers added yesterday as defendants in Ozanne’s lawsuit, Assemblyman Peter Barca and Senator Mark Miller, likely wouldn’t be fined, Dreps said. Barca attended the joint committee hearing and protested when the vote was taken, while Miller didn’t attend at all.

The case is State of Wisconsin Ex Rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 11cv1244, Dane County, Wisconsin, Circuit Court (Madison). The appellate case is Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011AP613-LV, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District 4 (Madison).


Bloomberg.com

Yep I can't find even a schedule for it....

madawaskan said...

I keep trying to get them to respond to it...

I don't even think Van Hollen tackles it-not in the 4th district appeal...

I can't find the Supreme Court docs.

I can't even find a schedule.

Third Coast said...

@LawGirl,
What is the likely sequence of events from here on out? Appeals of some sort? What are the options for the legislature?
Thanks for the informative posts.

Jay said...

Here's Obama's campaign speech promising he'd sign a universal health care bill.

Epic Fail

Obama never said he would sign a health insurance mandate

Obama also lied by saying premiums would decrease. They have gone up.

Wow, do you suck at this.

madawaskan said...

On Monday, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, following the bureau's Friday posting of the bill, asked permission to withdraw two accompanying motions for relief. He argued that his petition on behalf of La Follette has been rendered moot by the bureau's action.

But the state's 4th District Court of Appeals, in an order Tuesday, didn't see it that way.

It denied Van Hollen's motion, saying it "raises the question" whether the court has the authority to grant such a motion after certifying the matter to the state Supreme Court and before the Court has acted on the certification.

Last week, the appeals court called on the state's high court to decide whether the temporary restraining order should be kept in place, certifying a petition for leave to appeal and accompanying motion for temporary relief to the Court and certifying two specific questions:

- Whether striking down a legislative act -- also known as voiding -- is an available remedy for a violation of the Open Meetings Law by the Legislature or a subunit thereof; and if so

- Whether a court has the authority to enjoin the secretary of state's publication of an act before it becomes law.

The appeals court said it believes the matter now rests in the Supreme Court's hands.

"The Supreme Court might, for example, conference on the topic, conduct research or order additional briefing or argument to assist it in deciding whether to review the matter," the appeals court wrote in its order.

"That is to say, this matter is not now solely before this court and we doubt the Supreme Court views our power as being so broad that we may unilaterally act to remove the case from both courts."

The appeals court said it is "apparent" that the attorney general doesn't merely request an order permitting the withdrawal of his petition, but seeks a ruling on an "entirely new" question.

That is, whether the bureau's action means that the collective bargaining bill has become law.

"The attorney general's desire for a ruling on this issue is apparent because the only ground he offers to justify withdrawal is his legal argument and assertion that the act has become law," the appeals court wrote.


legalnewsonline.com

Jay said...

I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year.

And Obama did no such thing.

Guess who said this?

“So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."



Again, FLS, you are horrible at this.

ambisinistral said...

Ah, version III of the restraining order.

What's funny about this is Sumi is trying to exercise a judicial veto because of a supposed procedural error in the posting of meeting notice, meanwhile she's keeps screwing up how she writes her restraining order and having to say "whoopsie" and then rewrite it.

Try and try again I guess. Watching her slipshod ways it is no wonder she thinks the Legislature should give her a mulligan by voting again on the bill they've passed already.

What a maroon.

FB said...

Why would she voluntarily change the TRO without a request from the DA to do so? Also, how can someone not named in the restraining order be held in contempt of said order?

I ask, because I seek knowledge.

Sofa King said...

FLS -

That quote is talking about a statutory, not a constitutional requirement. Statutory requirements can certainly bind legislators. They cannot bind the legislature. Don't you see the distinction?

Of course it's possible for the open records law to require forfeitures or punishment of legislators. However, it is constitutionally impossible for it to prevent a future legislature from enacting statutes.

Meade said...

I haven't read this entire thread so maybe someone has already commented on this:

Huebsch said they still believe the law was passed and published legally.
"While I believe the budget repair bill was legally published and is indeed law, given the most recent court action, we will suspend the implementation of it at this time. DOA will continue to abide by the court orders, like the department has done all throughout this process," Huebsch said in a statement.


3:30PM today

Meade said...

Oops... sorry - I see that's the article the blogger linked to. Color me idiot.

Lionheart said...

Lawyer 1: A zebra is black with white stripes.
Lawyer 2: A zebra is white with black stripes.
Judge: I decree you stop talking about zebras and Lawyer 2 is racist.

former law student said...

That quote is talking about a statutory, not a constitutional requirement. Statutory requirements can certainly bind legislators. They cannot bind the legislature. Don't you see the distinction?

Of course it's possible for the open records law to require forfeitures or punishment of legislators. However, it is constitutionally impossible for it to prevent a future legislature from enacting statutes.


Then let that future (today's) legislature explicitly change the open meeting law -- it surely has that power, as you argue.

Mutaman said...

Hey Meade- still waiting for you to cite some of those "sexist" statements you've accused me of making.

former law student said...

The people of the state of Florida, worried about the issue Sofa King raises, made their "Government in the Sunshine" law explicitly applicable to their legislature by passing a constitutional amendment:

(e) The rules of procedure of each house shall provide that all legislative committee and subcommittee meetings of each house, and joint conference committee meetings, shall be open and noticed to the public. The rules of procedure of each house shall further provide that all prearranged gatherings, between more than two members of the legislature, or between the governor, the president of the senate, or the speaker of the house of representatives, the purpose of which is to agree upon formal legislative action that will be taken at a subsequent time, or at which formal legislative action is taken, regarding pending legislation or amendments, shall be reasonably open to the public. All open meetings shall be subject to order and decorum. This section shall be implemented and defined by the rules of each house, and such rules shall control admission to the floor of each legislative chamber and may, where reasonably necessary for security purposes or to protect a witness appearing before a committee, provide for the closure of committee meetings. Each house shall be the sole judge for the interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of this section.

Meade said...

Hey, Mutaman - I never accused you of making sexist statements. I said you and Jay Retread are blind to your own classism and sexism. Prove me wrong.

Francisco D said...

"Scalia did not recuse ... despite his being an old friend of Cheney."

You do know, of course, that the Scalias socialize most frequently with the Ginsburgs. PLease stop projecting your corruptability. There are people of intelligence and integrity. They are just not Wisconsin Democrats, these days.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Unless there is some real meat and potatoes, demonstrable violation of statute or constitution, it appears things were done properly. What this judge is attempting is politics via judiciary.

There is more supporting thoughts/links/text at LegalInsurrection courtesy of the last poster Trochilus here:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/judge-sumi-rules-budget-repair-bill-not.html#comments

Mutaman said...

"Hey, Mutaman - I never accused you of making sexist statements. I said you and Jay Retread are blind to your own classism and sexism. Prove me wrong."

Well:

1. If I never made any sexist statements, how could I be guilty of sexism? My thoughts? You can read my mind?

2. Find a lawyer to talk to. They will advise you that in this country the burden of proof is on the one making the charges.
For example, if I said "meade beats his wife, prove me wrong"- that would be pretty stupid.

Fen said...

FLS: Did the GOPPERs run on a union-busting platform? No.

And? So what.

Did Obama run on liberating Libya? No.

Really, yours has to be the dumbest talking point of the year.

Mutaman said...

"Did Obama run on liberating Libya? No."

Another great Fen analogy.

Patrick Ryan said...

"O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!"

Voltaire's prayer for his enemies has been granted here in Wisconsin. Any reading of the anti Sumi blather set forth herein proves the power of prayer.

Nerkbuckeye said...

Why are Republicans expected to obey a county circuit court judge and NOBODY expects Democrats (AKA Obama)to obey a Federal judge's ruling on Obamacare?

ken in sc said...

Pi to one significant digit is 3. Plus it says so in the Bible. (see the basin in Solomon's temple.)

Fen said...

MutaLibtard: Another great Fen analogy.

Yup. Otherwise, you could easily prove it to be false. Instead, you're reduced to the same old bullshit evasion.

former law student said...

NOBODY expects Democrats (AKA Obama)to obey a Federal judge's ruling on Obamacare?

Wha'choo tawkin' bout, Willis?


U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh found that issuing this mandate was well within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement.

In finding the insurance mandate lawful, Judge Steeh agreed with the Obama Administration’s position that the PPACA regulates economic decisions regarding the way in which health care services are paid for in order to reduce the number of uninsured. According to Judge Steeh:

There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

Steeh rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that Congress was forging new ground by attempting to regulate individuals’ decisions not to participate in an activity. In the ruling, Steeh reasoned: “[f]ar from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars . . onto other market participants.” Steeh reasoned that “this cost-shifting is exactly what the Health Care Reform Act was enacted to address . . .”

Without the minimum coverage provision, Steeh states, individuals would lack the incentive to purchase insurance until they became sick, which would wind up shifting market costs and increase health care premiums. Thus, the mandate, “which addresses economic decisions regarding health care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal.”


Makes sense to me.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@fls:

Way to ignore the question.

So when one judge rules for it and more than one rules against it, then the government gets to do what it wants? You prepared to back that standard for laws signed by GOP presidents?

And you keep refusing to apply the "didn't campaign on it standard" to Obama.

Which makes you a hack.

former law student said...

And you keep refusing to apply the "didn't campaign on it standard" to Obama.

If you can't see the difference between

1. The candidate for executive office openly campaigned on a platform that, once elected, his legislature balked at enacting; and

2. The candidate for executive office who concealed his platform, that, once elected, his legislature eagerly enacted,

then you may be a hack.

Meade said...

Walker didn't conceal his platform. He campaigned on lowering taxes and tax reform, stopping the high speed boondoggle rail, cutting government spending, and seeking concessions from state employees.

So far, so good. He and the Republican led legislature have been in office for three months. If Walker's promised 250,000 new private sector jobs are not created by 2214, I say throw the bums out. If they are - re elect.

lawyapalooza said...

FLS has schooled all of you on the actual law. Love it.

B said...

fls has schooled you....

Don't be absurd, or at least any more absurd than you've been throughout the thread.

You yourself have offered nothing but jargon. I would say a paralegal at best.

fls just echos nonsense with no real understanding of how or whether it even applies.

Neither of you has any grasp of how quickly logical fallacies poison any legal argument or position.

lawgirl stayed focused and offered cogent analysis. You and fls came off as jackasses.

former law student said...

Walker didn't conceal his platform. He campaigned on lowering taxes and tax reform, stopping the high speed boondoggle rail, cutting government spending, and seeking concessions from state employees.

Funny, I don't see "taking away collective bargaining rights from public employees" in that to-do list.

Meade said...

"concessions from state employees."

Art said...

It would certainly be nice if the legal process had something similar to the rules of order: "Call the Question" to force this process to completion. Continuing this case out to the end of May and beyond if she can get away with it, puts the thousands of local elected officials trying to do budgets, planning and negotiations on insurance plans for budgets that start July 1 in serious trouble.

At this point we are under obligations to bargain with unions over items that if the effective date of the BRB is confirmed to have been March 26th, will retroactively become illegal.

If the BRB is law, we can keep everyone employed and improve the level of services we provide. If it is not law we will have to lay off at least 15% and maybe as high as 20% of our staff to balance our budget. The high number of layoffs is due to seniority based layoffs and the fact that governments pay the unemployment benefits for those it lays off directly to the state UC division as it is paid.

I move to Call the Question.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»