Republicans passed the lame-duck laws during an all-night extraordinary session in December just weeks before Evers and Kaul took office. An extraordinary session is a previously unscheduled floor period initiated by majority party leaders.
A coalition of liberal-leaning groups filed a lawsuit in January arguing such sessions are illegal. They contend the Wisconsin Constitution allows legislators to convene only at such times as set out in a law passed at the beginning of each two-year session or at the governor’s call....
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said, “For decades the Legislature has used extraordinary sessions that have been widely supported by members of both parties. The most recent extraordinary session was held for Governor Evers’ Budget Address..... Today’s ruling only creates chaos and will surely raise questions about items passed during previous extraordinary sessions, including stronger laws against child sexual predators and drunk drivers. We will appeal this ruling.”
March 22, 2019
"A judge has issued a temporary injunction blocking Wisconsin Republicans’ contentious lame-duck laws limiting the powers of Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats."
WKOW reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Does the law really not provide for extraordinary sessions? If not, they better get busy repassing those child predator laws. (That said, it is an interesting response—the Democrats are pursuing a short-sighted irresponsiblly partisan course of action to negate the Republican’s irresponsibly short-sighted partisan action. A pox on both their houses.)
"Now a judge in Wisconsin has issued an injunction against laws legally passed by the legislature by legally elected representatives of the people. How did he do that? By declaring that the legally passed laws by the legally elected representatives of the people weren't "legal" at all." ~ (https://pjmedia.com/trending/wisconsin-democratic-judge-says-duly-elected-republicans-cant-pass-laws/)
Governor moves to overturn child predator laws.
That would be the headline for a Republican.
Fitzgerald is comparing apples to oranges, they didn't pass any legislation during the extraordinary session for Evers Budget Address, which Evers as Governor can call.
No one around here had any question that this was political gamesmanship, to pretend otherwise is for the out of staters and donor class.
Precedent? When the left agrees with past rulings and practices precedent rules. But the left cheers reversals of precedent when it favors them. I need to do some research, but I think special legislative sessions have been common in Wisconsin for a long time.
Courts take over when dems need a win. There's always a judge for them.
We went through something like this here in NC. After McCrory(R) lost in 2016, the R legislature passed laws decreasing the new D gov's appointment powers--over his veto IIRC. I can't remember the outcome of the court case(s), but it continued or restarted in 2018 as a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
A few judges need to be disrobed to encourage the others.
Wisconsin judges announces desire to start a civil war following NZ shooting.
Injured waterfowl, child sexual predators and drunk drivers.
Fitzgerald is comparing apples to oranges, they didn't pass any legislation during the extraordinary session for Evers Budget Address, which Evers as Governor can call.
That's not the dispute. What happens during the special session is irrelevant to the law.
extraordinary sessions are within the power of the legislature or they are not. If the legislature can convene an extraordinary session, what they do during that session is not under the authority or power of the judiciary. Separation of powers, dontchya know.
I have two judicial rulings I use to prove judges are politicians in robes. One is the Florida Supreme court ordering a state wide recount in Florida during the Bush v Gore election. Something the Florida Constitution did not provide for.
The second, happened in Wisconsin. Judge Sumi stayed a piece of legislation from getting published, hence it could not be implemented. I have never taken a law class, but I understand that until a piece of legislation is enacted, it is just legislation, and the judiciary has no power to inject themselves into the legislative process.
I can now add Judge Richard Niess to my list of corrupt Judges.
I would have some sympathy for the Dems here if it wasn’t exactly the kind of douchey sore-loser move they’re so expert at these days. More in sorrow than anger, we’re forced to play by their rules.
"Liberal leaning" actually means far left whack-jobs backed by very rich control freaks.
That's not the dispute. What happens during the special session is irrelevant to the law.
extraordinary sessions are within the power of the legislature or they are not. If the legislature can convene an extraordinary session, what they do during that session is not under the authority or power of the judiciary. Separation of powers, dontchya know."
Iownan2 well said. You cut to the heart of the matter- the court has exceeded its authority. Going by the article, nothing the lame duck legislature passed wasn't in of itself legally impermissible had it been passed in a prior session of the legislature. The judge is playing politics.
iowan2 said...
I have two judicial rulings I use to prove judges are politicians in robes. One is the Florida Supreme court ordering a state wide recount in Florida during the Bush v Gore election. Something the Florida Constitution did not provide for."
Actually the FL Supreme Court ruled that Gore's campaign could conduct recounts of several counties and the Bush campaigned had argued all 67 counties or none. Had Gore prevailed the Fl Secretary of State could not have certified the election results and Florida would have been unable to cast its electoral votes thus disenfranchising the State in the Electoral College. The US Supreme Court put a stop to these shenanigans by the Gore campaign and the very liberal FL Supreme Court simply by ruling election rules can be changed before an election, after an election but not during an election process. When the Miami Herald which is not now ever has been, a friend to Republicans conducted along with several other newspapers a recount of all of FL's 67 counties the results were that Bush won. The tell that Gore had tried to steal an election was his attempt to cherry pick the right counties, counties with Democrat majority populations and Democrat election officials. Just look up Broward County 2018 election for the usual Democrat election theft efforts.
After the Professor’s recent lamentation about NPR being “disrespectful to judges” it is interesting to note that commenters on both sides of the fence here seem to assume this is a political action by a judge. Fair enough.
Years ago, I clerked for a federal judge who was a pillar of integrity. He was ALL about the law! He is the standard by which I judge judges. By that standard, few are worthy of respect. Democrats are the worst offenders.
Cubanbob, you have some details wrong. Bush never asked the secretary of state for a statewide recount. If he had, the Secretary would have, because the law allowed for it. Yes Gore asked for recounts in heavily tilted Dem Counties. Not because there was a slim margin in those counties, they were huge Dem blowouts, but if you are looking for Dem under counts you go to where the Most Dem votes are. Then the Florida Supreme Court stepped in, with no case before them, and ordered the State wide recount. That Florida Supreme Court order is what Bush sued to stop, along with the sliding standards used across the state about what counted as a vote, triggering equal protection claims. Look up the Florida SC and see if you can find a plaintiff and defendant in the ruling to order a state wide recount. SCOTUS, in their ruling specifically stayed the recount until the Florida SC got back the SCOTUS on where they found their constitutional power to order a recount. I have never heard if they ever responded to SCOTUS.
Had Gore prevailed the Fl Secretary of State could not have certified the election results and Florida would have been unable to cast its electoral votes.
No. The Florida constitution had a backstop. In the event the votes could not be certified, the Florida House of Representatives would pick electors to send to Washington DC. (a Republican controlled House of Representative) Yet another reason the Corrupt Florida SC issued orders they had no power to issue. I wish the Secretary of State would have refused the order for exactly the same reason SCOTUS stayed their order for a recount.
As is so apt to happen, judges step in to issue legal solutions to political problems that have political solutions.
Florida would have been just fine if the judges would have followed the election rules laid out in the Florida Constitution
It's not over until we win.
That mindset explains many, many things.
I love that in two discussions about this topic yesterday, I twice heard the Merrick Garland appointment drama compared to this.
The same people who spent most of a year avoiding giving Garland a hearing are hypocrites if they support this lame duck power grab.
Post a Comment