May 26, 2011

Judge Sumi strikes down the Wisconsin collective bargaining law.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:
[Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat] sued to block the law after Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) filed a complaint saying that GOP legislative leaders had not given proper notice in convening a conference committee of lawmakers from both houses to approve Walker's budget-repair bill....
Comments at the Sentinel:
What a surprise, coming out of Dane County....

Thanks to the Democratic Party, We now have a 3rd Legislative Party.
THE COURTS!!!!!...

Shocking...NOT!!!...

Time to recall activist judges in this state. Send this liberal wacko packing. Tommy Thompson had it right, there is Madison, a radius of 30 miles and then there is reality. Time to send this through the legislature again!  Go Scottie Go! The majority of Wisconsinites support you!...

Its about time. She's only sat on this for a couple of months stalling with the worst kept secret of all time. Now, appeal it and also put it in the budget bill.

116 comments:

Lincolntf said...

Fleebaggers assemble!!!

(I'm assuming that the GOP is going to start the process from procedural scratch immediately.)

Shouting Thomas said...

So, this means that the Republicans will have to hold hearings and pass the law again.

Will the Democrats cut and run to Illinois to prevent the holding of hearings, and then go back to court to gut the legislation once it is passed again?

This is how democracy looks!

Methadras said...

Oh look, leftards are at it again. I wonder what Sumi will get for this?

chickenlittle said...

Tommy Thompson had it right, there is Madison, a radius of 30 miles and then there is reality.

That idea belonged to former governor Lee Dreyfus, not Tommy Thompson.

kent said...

"This is what contempt for the will of the people looks like."

Patrick said...

At this point, for chrissakes, just repass the damn bill.

wv: bless. I'm not kidding. Not that I would joke about something such as a random combination of letters that occasionally becomes a real word, or near a real word.

edutcher said...

I suppose the idea of the judge as disinterested broker is pretty much dead.

Triangle Man said...

Every month this drags out leaves another $800+ in Althouse's paycheck. Given that, she is doing an admirable job of covering this against her own financial interest.

chickenlittle said...

Madison is starting to look more and more like Sacramento.

Enjoy it while it lasts garage mahal!

Sofa King said...

Total bullshit.

This is basic first-year law school stuff.

Separation of powers means that the legislature has the sole AND complete power to make the law, prividing only that it does not violate the Constitution.

Thus, the courts can legitimately constrain the legislative power of the legislature ONLY by finding a consitutional deficiency.

But the open records law is not a constitutional deficiency, it is statutory deficiency. And statutes - that is to say, previous legislation - CAN NOT constrain a legislature! This is a fundamental legal principal!

The court is way out of bounds here.

James said...

I doubt the legislature will revote on this bill; they seem content to let the Supreme Court rule.

As a side note, isn't it odd that we haven't heard from JoAnn Kloppenburg yet? It can't be that she's still deciding what to do.

Triangle Man said...

This is a fundamental legal principal!

Since I haven't been to law school, please help me understand. If the legislature is alleged to have violated a law passed by a previous legislature, then who determines whether the law has been broken and how the violation is redressed?

chickenlittle said...

As a side note, isn't it odd that we haven't heard from JoAnn Kloppenburg yet? It can't be that she's still deciding what to do.

At this point it seems a given that she'll sue the State. I could be wrong. I hope she does and I hope she loses not just her pathetic lawsuit but also the recall elections for her partisan overlords.

JohnJ said...

I've assumed all along that Walker has a contingency plan at the ready.

Governor, now would be the time.

Joanna said...

I hope they just let this ride to the Supreme Court instead of starting from scratch. It'd be nice to go to the Farmer's Mkt w/o having to wade through protesters. Besides, even if if the GOP successfully re-passes it, the whole thing is still gonna end up in the courts anyways.

isn't it odd that we haven't heard from JoAnn Kloppenburg yet? It can't be that she's still deciding what to do.

She'll be waiting til the very last day to make an announcement. So it will look like she thought REALLY HARD about it. Gag.

k*thy said...

I doubt the legislature will revote on this bill; they seem content to let the Supreme Court rule.

It's too politically toxic to vote on as a stand-alone. I'm betting they'll put it in the budget.

Sofa King said...

Since I haven't been to law school, please help me understand. If the legislature is alleged to have violated a law passed by a previous legislature, then who determines whether the law has been broken and how the violation is redressed?

Subsequent legislation always takes precedence over previous legislation. If the legislature is alleged to have violated a law by passing legislation, then the new legislation effectively overrules the prior legislation. It is not possible under any circumstance for an act of legislation to be prohibited by another act of legislation.

David said...

Anybody got a link to the opinion?

Joanna said...

I coulda sworn I remember Fitzgerald saying that if it wasn't settled in the courts by June, they'd do a revote. I can't remember when/where I heard that. Anyone else remember something like that, or was I just dreaming?

(Note: even if he did say that, it doesn't mean it'll happen.)

wv: wardish

Real Debate said...

(I'm assuming that the GOP is going to start the process from procedural scratch immediately.)

No, they won't. sumi interjected herself into this before this was even law. She is making new precident here and the Republicans do not want this.

This should be overturned and if anyone deserves to be recalled it is Sumi.

Michael K said...

As the union make their last stand in Wisconsin, other states are passing laws that go beyond Walker's. I don't know if union bosses are stupid or if they think they have the best chance to roll back the tide there.

Maybe both.

Sloanasaurus said...

It is not possible under any circumstance for an act of legislation to be prohibited by another act of legislation.

This has to be correct. It is an obvious separation of powers issue.

For example, could you pass a law that says a future legislature can’t raise taxes and can only undue the “can’t raise taxes statute” with unanimous vote?

All a future legislature has to do is pass a new law voiding the old law with a majority vote (as the State Constitution requires),but wait... the old law says you need a unanimous vote… so could a court strike down the new law, which voids the old law because there was no unanimous vote, which was required under the old law?

Joanna said...

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court said Wednesday it would hear arguments in June over whether a judge had the authority to block implementation of Gov. Scott Walker's proposal taking away collective bargaining rights from nearly all state workers."

"Republican legislative leaders said earlier Wednesday that if the courts have not ruled on the legality of the collective bargaining bill passed earlier this year by early June, it will be added into the state budget by the Joint Finance Committee.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald both told The Associated Press that it would make the most sense for the
committee to add the language into the budget before it comes up for debate before the full Legislature.
However, both Fitzgeralds are hoping the courts rule that the bill passed in March is legal and can take effect so further legislative action isn't necessary."

from a 5 May article

Carol_Herman said...

The one, two, three, punch

Sumi goes. Klopen-hoppen follows. And, Abrahamson will drag out the forks and the plastic reindeer.

Of course, lawyers know the reference to "forks and plastic reindeer." It's the short-hand used to describe Sandra Day O'Connor's opinions. Where she straddled the "complaints" ... there were two of 'em. Of displaying the Nativity ... where the public could see it.

In one case? Nativity stood alone. In the other? Ah ha! It was joined by plastic reindeer.

The "forks" come from her way of piercing logic. (But she did keep Roe intact! She just extended the terms.) And, we still have arguments.

But it's good to remember that O'Connor was NOT put on the bench by a democrap. And, she sailed into her appointment to the "the first female on the big boy's bench."

It's like Mideast politics, where every country (except Israel), has a despotic dictator. And, when you change heads ... the replacements are worse.

This issue with unions is not just stuck in Madison, Wisconsin. Where the only living creaturs would know about it, would be the cows.

It's blew through Wisconsin. It sits there. As people watch Obama lead his whole part up and over a cliff. Well, didn't Custer do somethihg similar, after he attacked a horde of pissed off indians?

Keep in mind that this fight has only just begun. When did it start? With FDR. How many failures have you seen? Well, in JFK, they blew off their own. But LBJ, CARTER, and Monica's kneepads ... sure left their marks.

Oh, and "fixing" depends on how the next generation is growing up. And, what they're gonna do, too.

Sencho said...

Tar: $75.
Feathers: $20.
Judge Sumi getting what she's earned: Priceless.

For everything else, there's the FleebaggerCard. Don't legislate without it.

Sofa King said...

Triangle Man, did that help?

Scott M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Milwaukee said...

Democrats want to up the ante? The Republicans should raise the stakes and make Wisconsin a right-to-work state for all employees, public and private. Allow current contracts to run to their end, but all extensions, re-negotiated or new contracts all employees to work with out joining a union as a condition of employment.

Fen said...

Please layoff another 3,000 public service employees while this goes through the courts. Thanks.

Lem said...

Joanna said...

She'll be waiting til the very last day to make an announcement. So it will look like she thought REALLY HARD about it. Gag.

It would seem that the only reason for taking this into the courts would be to delay in order to produce this vacancy. The vacancy has special value because of the hot controversy over the budget-repair bill:..

Milwaukee said...

When the Republicans vote on this again, will they meet at Camp Randall Stadium, so there's enough room? Who is going to do security?

Why should Wisconsin public employees get right-to-work privileges when private employees don't? One more way public employees have it better.

James said...

As I recall, in an earlier hearing Judge Sumi realized that she had painted herself into a corner and told the legislators' lawyers that the legislature ccould simply revote on the bill. But I'm guessing that the Fitzgerald brothers don't want to throw her a lifeline so they'll leave the final decision up to the Supreme Court.

Lincolntf said...

Hmmm, I wonder what will happen with the Teachers this summer(pending the June appeal which could render the whole thing moot). It'll be vacation so they'll have plenty of free time to dress up as cows and scream profanities at the voters, but this time they'll be skipping out on days at the beach, not a bunch of students they can't stand.

Browndog said...

Pass it again?

Take it to the Supreme Court?

According to an interview on the radio (620) this morning, they plan to do both.

WHEN the Supreme Court starts dragging it's feet, they'll call for a new vote.

And yes, they expect the marxist to riot and physically try to prevent another vote....for all the world to see.

traditionalguy said...

The reopening of a victory gives a chance for a bad result but adds no chances for an improved result. Keep it in the Supreme Court.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

So now we know what Journal Sentinel readers think about the case. I wonder what Althouse thinks.

Brennan said...

Ed Shultz better get back on the air fast. Who is going to cheerlead this mockery?

Triangle Man said...

It'll be vacation so they'll have plenty of free time

According to teachers, they will mostly be working their Summer jobs to make ends meet.

Triangle Man said...

@Sofa King

Every little bit helps.

I understand that the legislature can undo previous laws, and could have, for example, completely repealed the Open Records Law. However, that doesn't seem to fit here. They passed a new law in (alleged) violation of an established law. As a hypothetical, what if they had "passed" the original budget bill without required quorum in attendance? Wouldn't the judiciary be responsible for review of that?

Joanna said...

I wonder how a revote would affect the summer recalls. (By which I mean, I wonder how the presumed massive protests and Capitol-inhabitance would affect summer recalls.)

I assume Dems think it'd inspire their voters, but I wonder if enough people are sick of the protesting that it could actually have the opposite reaction.

I'm currently stuck inside the Madison bubble and don't have a good temperature gauge for the rest of the state.

Joanna said...

Ed Shultz better get back on the air fast. Who is going to cheerlead this mockery?

BWAHAHAHA!

Brennan said...

I assume Dems think it'd inspire their voters, but I wonder if enough people are sick of the protesting that it could actually have the opposite reaction.

Good weather? More people.
Higher gas prices? Fewer people.

I'd expect a ruckus spectacular if there is a revote.

Ann Althouse said...

"So now we know what Journal Sentinel readers think about the case. I wonder what Althouse thinks."

I think everyone talking about this is so obviously political that I find it hard to take the legal question seriously enough to sequester myself inside law enough to form an opinion which would only be viewed and used politically anyway.

Class factotum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TWM said...

Cause it's always about Democracy with the liberals - always. Well, except when they lose.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Triangle Man: Teachers can't make ends meet on $50K - $100K? Half of the people in Wisconsin wish they had that problem.

Lincolntf said...

Makes sense, so what's your political opinion?
Or better, "What is your opinion of the politics"?

enicar333 said...

"According to teachers, they will mostly be working their Summer jobs to make ends meet."

LOL. Discover how much your overpaid/overcompensated teacher makes here http://dpi.wi.gov/lbstat/newasr.html

In Racine the usual union thug teacher makes: Low $38,903; Hi:$89,947; Avg: $55,405. That is gross take home pay. Now, add in the "fringe" benefits $28,533!!! And those fringe benefits are tax free. The teachers parking lot is full of bright new shiny SUV's and every teacher can afford a new cardboard McMansion.

Of course, that is the price we are paying in Racine for a FAILING school system with a raving lunatic for a School Superintendent (Jim Shaw) who says school vouchers are MORALLY WRONG and that he will turn the school system around if we FIRST go $250 million into debt and build him new schools. Public education? It's too costly, too ineffective and has to go. Time to return education to parents as their responsibility.

Joanna said...

"I assume Dems think it'd inspire their voters, but I wonder if enough people are sick of the protesting that it could actually have the opposite reaction."
--
"Good weather? More people.
Higher gas prices? Fewer people.

I'd expect a ruckus spectacular if there is a revote."


What I meant to say:
If there is a ruckus spectacular, I wonder if that will annoy people and make them less likely to vote pro-union in the recall elections. I assume Dems think more protests would inspire people to vote for union supporters, but it could have the opposite effect.

Lincolntf said...

I know a few teachers who do summer jobs, mainly the young ones. Generally bartending, serving as summer cops, real estate agents, etc. But that's not because they're living hand-to-mouth, it's because they're hard workers who want more cool stuff. Like the rest of the world, they realize that they can't just vote/extort themselves a life of luxury.

J said...

There is Madison, a radius of 30 miles and then there is ....WASP-zombieland, full of white conservatives who think the New Deal was a stalinist plot, notwithstanding the fact that most of their grandddaddies bought their farms--and protected their mortgages-- via the New Deal.

enicar333 said...

It's the value of those "FRINGE" benefits that really gets me going. It's never included in the "poor teachers" salary. They NEVER seem to understand that if you are funding your own retirement, if you have to pay for your own health insurance etc. that effectively lowers your take home pay and you can't afford the Cadillac coverage/benefits teachers receive.

Once I went into business as a sole proprietor. The taxes and the paperwork took any joy out of it and stole my profits. Never again. At least NOT in this environment. It is NOT worth it to work that hard - oh what's the use...This is why financial collapse is necessary in America to save it. It's coming.

Brian Hancock said...

Non-sequitar:
Had a field trip with my son's 4th grade class yesterday to the Capitol building and the Senator from our school district, Jon Erpenbach, spoke to the kids for about 20 minutes - when asked about Governor Walker, he said:

(paraphrasing) that when he disagrees with something, then it's his job to come up with an alternative solution rather than just saying "no" and sometimes you have to vote against bills.

Nice answer for the kids and I am glad he didn't mention how to avoid a quorum by fleeing over the state line.

With that said, he was a well spoken guy, too bad his actions have counteracted his lawmaking 101 speak.

Triangle Man said...

There is Madison, a radius of 30 miles and then there is ....WASP-zombieland,

...and Milwaukee. Half of the population of Wisconsin lives in and around Milwaukee.

Triangle Man said...

@enicar

I think our school district provide good value for the money we pay in property taxes. Sorry to hear Racine is not doing well.

enicar333 said...

@Lincolntf

"Like the rest of the world, they realize that they can't just vote/extort themselves a life of luxury."

JUST WHAT WAS JIM DOYLE ABOUT? This is what the public union employees do at EVERY election. It is why business is fleeing. It is why I won't work for myself to go broke paying excessive taxes and endless paperwork.

"Hardworking Teachers"? GREEDY SOB'S. Bored. Here in Racine we have Firefighters and Teachers involved in "cash" construction because they are bored with so much time off. Scam after scam.

Sofa King said...

They passed a new law in (alleged) violation of an established law. As a hypothetical, what if they had "passed" the original budget bill without required quorum in attendance? Wouldn't the judiciary be responsible for review of that?

The legislature does not have to formally "unpass" previous laws to invalidate them. Subsequent legislation simply pre-empts any previous legislation.

The judiciary would indeed be responsible for review of your hypothetical because the quorum is a Constitutional requirement. Your hypothetical is not at all applicable to the circumstances in this case.

J said...

12:02. Yes, and the city people are not all pro-TP/Walker. The rabid TP-anti-unionists are the white trash and sundayschoolers who think teachers are commies. Their preachers told em so. Public employees?--why, that's the, the Debbil!.

garage mahal said...

It's too politically toxic to vote on as a stand-alone. I'm betting they'll put it in the budget.

I'm sure Imperial Walker has seen the latest dreadful polling numbers, and how he would crushed by Feingold. He'll be a right wing martyr soon, I wouldn't put anything past this asswipe before he moves onto his next gig.

Curious George said...

Ann Althouse said...
"So now we know what Journal Sentinel readers think about the case. I wonder what Althouse thinks."

I think everyone talking about this is so obviously political that I find it hard to take the legal question seriously enough to sequester myself inside law enough to form an opinion which would only be viewed and used politically anyway.


Translation "Present"

Your beloved POTUS would be so proud.

Carol said...

The court found that the legislature violated its own open meetings law. We already knew that was possible because the R's got in a big assed hurry toward the end. I recall worrying about it back when it happened, so here we are.

They'll have to go back and redo and keep the goddam doors open.

Jim said...

This new argument that the legislature should be immune from certain laws in order to pass other politically-motivated ones is pretty desperate. There's no way to justify how this was done, but it's been entertaining to watch you all try.

Rex said...

The decision is not the most brilliant piece of legal writing I've seen, but I think she covers all the issues very well. I don't expect a rational discussion of the judge's opinion in the comments section of a blog, but do look forward to reading any thoughtful critique of the decision from legal bloggers like Althouse and Esenberg. There is clearly room for reversal here, but I can't imagine that Walker's team will want to wait that long and take that risk. The open records laws have to mean something, and I would expect the conservatives on the supreme court would have a hard time ignoring Sumi's factual findings and approving the process the GOP took to push this through. I expect they will re-submit it, give proper notice, and face the consequences.

Mutnodjmet said...

As Sumi is a mummy-like creature, here may be a good spot to share this piece -- Egypt’s Lost Pyramids Discovered by Satellite Imaging

Murph said...

Prof. Ann,

For us laypeople, what steps are necessary in Wisconsin to impeach a sitting District Court judge. Seems to me that Judge Sumi has made herself a candidate for removal.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lawyapalooza said...

Love the fact that all of you geniuses criticize the decision and you haven't even read it. Typical. By the way, the judiciary is designed to act as a check on the legislative branch. She didn't make a law, she stopped the legislature from violating the law.

Alex said...

She didn't make a law, she stopped the legislature from violating the law.

There was no law violated dummy.

Alex said...

So what is this "clear and convincing" evidence?

MadisonMan said...

Follow the rules. It's not that hard.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I think everyone talking about this is so obviously political that I find it hard to take the legal question seriously enough to sequester myself inside law enough to form an opinion which would only be viewed and used politically anyway.

@Althouse,

I agree that most approach this case from their own political angle. That's why I come here. I believe that you would offer an educated and cruelly neutral (if you will) opinion on this topic.

Of course some will view your opinion through a purely political prism. But this already happens on many topics discussed here on a daily basis.

Alex said...

Follow the rules. It's not that hard.

Which rule was violated? Of course you take Judge Sumi's word for it.

Sofa King said...

Love the fact that all of you geniuses criticize the decision and you haven't even read it. Typical. By the way, the judiciary is designed to act as a check on the legislative branch. She didn't make a law, she stopped the legislature from violating the law.

I did read it, asshole. And I made the separation of powers point back when the case was first being heard. Nowhere in the opinion is there an explanation of how this does not violate separation of powers. It is a quintessential political question.

This new argument that the legislature should be immune from certain laws in order to pass other politically-motivated ones is pretty desperate.


Yeah, that's not really a new argument. What is the constitutional nexus in this case? There *has* to be one, otherwise it is nothing more than a court telling the legislature what it may and may not legislate!

MadisonMan said...

Which rule was violated?

Apparently, the Open Meetings rule.

Duh. As Jeremy would say. And talking to you, that's an appropriate level.

Sofa King said...

Follow the rules. It's not that hard.


What about this rule?

ARTICLE IV.
LEGISLATIVE
Legislative power.
SECTION 1.
The legislative power shall
be vested in a senate and assembly.

Alex said...

Apparently, the Open Meetings rule.

No evidence actually provided. Duh.

Alex said...

Sofa King - this is clearly a violation of the powers separation. Once again the SCOTUS will have to beat down the Dane County activist court.

Alex said...

Madison Man - don't pretend you aren't a flaming lefty.

Sofa King said...

Oh, I forgot, the constitution is like a hundred years old or something. Not even the brilliant Judge Sumi could be expected to understand some arcane concept of separated powers.

J said...

Regarding the jurisdictional BS, the US govt (and probably SC) will take a crack at Walker's states-right hack-attack anyway . There are Federal laws allowing for PE unions--depending on how the legal-bureaucrats interpret them, the existing Fed law does allows for PE unions, in ALL states--the teabuggers will lose that one as well. Back to the Ayn Rand imitator workshops, kiddos

Chuck66 said...

"According to teachers, they will mostly be working their Summer jobs to make ends meet."

Ahhh, not my Wisc school teacher relatives. They all take the summer off. Much time at the pool. Some nice long trips. And then bitch about how rough they have it.

Beep said...

@J
The Governor is not disbanding Public Employee unions at all. Ideally, they should be modeled after the NTEU (The union for Federal Employees), which does not have collective bargaining for benefits or pay.

Mian said...

Judicial excess, thy name is "Sumi."

Ann Althouse said...

"Makes sense, so what's your political opinion?
Or better, "What is your opinion of the politics"?"

I don't think courts should be used to nullify laws on the ground of a procedural anomaly. I don't like what the legislature did, but I understand the circumstances that pushed them to the point of doing what it did.

As for the open meetings law and the role of the courts specifically under Wisconsin legal precedents, I have not made a study of it. I assume that law is already politicized, so I don't have a lot of respect for what is there and the task of taking it seriously in some dimension in which I don't really think it belongs is elaborate. I could do it, but I don't think anyone would appreciate my work. I'm a busy person and I've chosen not to apply myself to that project.

And I'm not voting "present" here, because I'm not part of a body that has the power to vote the answer to this problem.

Remember that time people hit my PayPal button to get to some number like $200 to get me to eat an egg salad sandwich? (Google it if you don't.)

What do you think you'd need to pay me to do the research project? It's so much more than $200 that I don't even want to say.

Triangle Man said...

Separation of powers

Checks and balances.

kimsch said...

Professor Jacobson says:

On the merits, Judge Sumi takes an expansive view that all that flows from an Open Meetings violation is subject to being voided. The alleged violation took place at a committee meeting which merely moved the legislation to a full vote. The actual vote approving the legislation complied with the Open Meetings Law under any scenario.

wv: humsgr

Sofa King said...

Checks and balances.


Is that an argument? Tell me, please, what is the check on a judiciary that feels empowered to tell the legislature what it may and may not legislate with no constitutional grounds whatsoever.

Alex said...

Tell me, please, what is the check on a judiciary that feels empowered to tell the legislature what it may and may not legislate with no constitutional grounds whatsoever.

Just vote Judge Sumi out. If she's appointed, then vote out the scoundrels who put in her in there.

Triangle Man said...

Is that an argument? Tell me, please, what is the check on a judiciary that feels empowered to tell the legislature what it may and may not legislate with no constitutional grounds whatsoever

As Alex points out, the check is that the composition of the judiciary can be changed.

Alex said...

No matter what, the composition of the judiciary reflects the will of the people. Dane County are moonbats. Hopefully the WI SCOTUS is more reasonable.

Triangle Man said...

Is that an argument?

"Checks and balances" is a response to the idea you seem to be promoting that separation of powers means that the branches of government operate completely independently. The Executive has veto power over the Legislative, and the Judicial has power of review.

Sofa King said...

As Alex points out, the check is that the composition of the judiciary can be changed.


So the voters of Dane county get to be a check on the legislature for the entire state?

Isn't Dane county already represented in the legislature?

Sofa King said...

Anyways, regardless of whether you think it's a good "check" or not, it is not constitutionally allowed.

kimsch said...

Alex, she was just re-elected unopposed in the April election.

wv: anymo: Sumi said there ain't gonna be no collective bargaining law anymo.

Alex said...

Alex, she was just re-elected unopposed in the April election.

Tough shit - that's the way the cookie crumbles. Checks and balances. I'd rather have a system that put a brake on legislation all the time rather then having it rammed through at warp speed.

Sofa King said...

"Checks and balances" is a response to the idea you seem to be promoting that separation of powers means that the branches of government operate completely independently. The Executive has veto power over the Legislative, and the Judicial has power of review.

Yes, for constitutionality. Name the alleged constitutional violation by the legislature in this case.

Alex said...

Yes, for constitutionality. Name the alleged constitutional violation by the legislature in this case.

Which is why I expect the WI SCOTUS to lift the injunction.

B said...

J said...."Regarding the urisdictional BS, the US govt (and probably SC) will take a crack at Walker's states-right hack-attack anyway . There are Federal laws allowing for PE unions...."

It's obvious that you looked at this post and thread as just an opportunity for a bit of ankle biting without getting enough background to understand what the issue is. As usual, you just had to proudly display your ignorant multicolored ass like a veldt baboon. Can't help. it, can you?

You're considered an idiot anyway, but you might try opting to keep your mouth shut once and a while rather than reinforcing that opinion every time you open it.

Alex said...

Under "Conclusions of Law":

80. A violation of the Open Meetings law occurred when the Joint Committee of Conference met on March 9, 2011, because it failed to provide at least 24 hours public notice of the meeting as required by Wis. Stat. Sec. 19.84(3), and failed to provide even the two-hour notice allowed for "good cause" shown.

81. A violation of the Open Meetings law occurred when the Joint Committee of Conference met on March 9, 2011, and failed to provide reasonable public access to the meeting, as required by Wis Stat. Sec. 19.83(1)


Busted.

Triangle Man said...

Yes, for constitutionality. Name the alleged constitutional violation by the legislature in this case.

This gets back to my original question for you. Who is responsible for evaluating violations of the law by the legislation? Are you saying that the legislation is not bound by the open meetings law?

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

I think she really should have addressed the Rule 93 argument (the bulletin board provision) and explained why she thinks that does not conflict with the 24 hour notice provision of the Open Meetings law. But I've not read the briefs - perhaps it was not raised by the DOJ.

Sofa King said...

This gets back to my original question for you. Who is responsible for evaluating violations of the law by the legislation?

The legislature, by definition. It is an oxymoron to say that a law violates the law. The law is what the legislature says it is.

Are you saying that the legislation is not bound by the open meetings law?

Yes, that is what I am saying. It is possible (arguably, because there is constitutional immunity involved) that legislators individually could be bound by the law. But it is per se impossible for an act of law to violate the law! If the legislature chooses not to be bound by previous legislation, explicitly or implicitly, it has total and absolute power to do so.

Rex said...

At first I thought perhaps it was overkill for Sumi to devote the opening section of her decision to a discussion of Marbury v Madison, but based on some comments I've now read here, I think it was necessary. There certainly seems to be a rather high level of ignorance regarding the judiciary's role in interpreting laws and legislative actions.

Laura said...

I am not an attorney, but I cannot believe we have a system wherein our legislature can violate open meeting laws and it is somehow inappropriate for the courts to intervene and tell the legislature that any laws they pass while meeting illegally are null and void. That's simply common sense. These guys thought they were above the open meeting law and the court slapped them down. Well done.

Freeman Hunt said...

We need media coverage of competent female judges. Every bit of news one hears about female judges seems to involve their being soft-headed. I, for one, am offended.

Fen said...

J: The rabid TP-anti-unionists are the white trash

Jared is having another racist meltdown.

Lovernios said...

The first thing the WI legislature should do is amend the Open Meetings law and specifically exempt itself from its provisions.

Then proceed with appeals until either they win on appeal, or if not, then pass the law again with all the Republican lawmakers in an undisclosed location in Illinois.

WineSlob said...

To Sumi the Separation of Power
Is a Fart for the Breeze to Devour
To Disperse in the Din
Of the Lefty Chagrin
To Be Abolished in the Whims of the Hour

Maguro said...

I am not an attorney, but I cannot believe we have a system wherein our legislature can violate open meeting laws and it is somehow inappropriate for the courts to intervene and tell the legislature that any laws they pass while meeting illegally are null and void. That's simply common sense. These guys thought they were above the open meeting law and the court slapped them down. Well done

Think of it this way: Would it make sense for the courts to strike down an Executive Order because it conflicts with a different Executive Order?

Skookum John said...

The executive should announce that they do not recognize her jurisdiction in this matter and will ignore the ruling as if it never existed. If she keeps it up, abolish her court. Fucking liberals want to play by banana republic rules, let's double down on the filthy bastards.

Joseph said...

Let's take advantage of Judge Sumi's brilliant opinion. We need to review every legislative act taken during the Doyle years and research for a technical violation of the open meeting laws at any stage in the process of the legislation. Take each one to Judge Sumi and ask her to issue a temporary restraining on the law. In fact, let's go back to the original legislation granting collective bargaining rights fifty years ago and see if we can come up with a cause to strike down the law.

Curious George said...

" kimsch said...
Professor Jacobson says:

On the merits, Judge Sumi takes an expansive view that all that flows from an Open Meetings violation is subject to being voided. The alleged violation took place at a committee meeting which merely moved the legislation to a full vote. The actual vote approving the legislation complied with the Open Meetings Law under any scenario."

Professor Jacobson must not have a very busy life...you know blogging about American Idol or something

bandmeeting said...

I've got an interesting teacher story.

I was speaking to a woman today whose last name was Serpico. I asked her if she was related to Frank and she said no, but she's been asked that a million times and, it was hard growing up with because, "...school".

I thought she was talking about schoolyard taunts such as, "Seripco, twerpico,nya,nya,nya."

I then heard something about teachers and asked her what she said.

"The teachers were terrible. They'd say,'are you a rat?'"

"Uh,are you serious?"

"Yes, it was terrible."

So, what's the lesson today, "educators?".

"Solidarity even if it's a felony."

Freeman Hunt said...

Do we have to pretend that this ruling had anything to do with law?

"I hereby strike down the collective bargaining law."
Reporter: "On what basis?"
"Because of the open meetings law."
"But it complied with that."
"Yes, but ermle flurf eb yuttle ket."
"Excuse me?"
"Mmimkin lambpirf kaln palhew ren tah."
"What?"
"Look, I don't like it, okay? I'm the judge, okay? It's struck down, okay?"
"Okay."
"Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm speaking at a women's dinner tonight."

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com