Judge strikes down Wisconsin collective bargaining law

For what? Pointing out the facts to you again? Since you made absolutely no comment about the facts, merely you typical insults, I must assume that you agree with the facts as I have stated them. Those pesky facts are your downfall yet again.

 

I remember that every Democrat was guilty of job abandonment. The people complaining that they were not given proper notice were hiding from authorities in a different state in an illegal attempt to "filibuster" the proposed legislation. But in your warped mind, the Republicans are the guilty party. Do you even listen the the crap you spew?

 

Ok, lets line them up and get out the AK's and cut them down. On pay per view.

 

Now you have us thinking about the Cossacks of Stalin's reign.

 

Both party's are guilty of that, though this time it's the dems.

 

rlm, would you agree conservative judges have also legislated from the bench in the past? Or do you believe it's a liberal thing?

 

I believe that you will find it is mostly a liberal thing (since many believe that international law supersedes our constitution), but I assure you it is not limited to one party.

 

Again, you guys chose to ignore the FACT that the State Constitution mandates a 48 hour waiting period before a vote can be taken. The constitution DOES NOT STATE that any legislator has to be present only that a quorum is necessary to have a vote. The Democrats were being railroaded and took the only action they could take. Not illegal, not against the State Constitution, but necessary to thwart an out of control, power hungry Governor who will be impeached on his one year anniversary in office as the State Constitution mandates. The will of the people matters not some governor turned dictator. Aren’t you the guys that are supposed to hate the overreach of government? This is as big of an overreach as it gets. You dip sticks are just too partisan to see that you are cheering for the same thing you rail against every day. Your blindness is comical.

 

Interesting, but again that is not what the Supreme Court ruled on. And that is not why Sumi ruled against the law.

Union-linked Judge Impedes Wisconsin Law.

Again, their ruling was that Sumi had no authority to make her ruling and, further, that "legal challenges couldn't be brought until the law took effect". They have not ruled that anything is or is not constitutional. So you can spout all the opinions you want, but without backup and contrary to the courts ruling, they are nothing more than (your?) opinion

 

Please explain how the Democrats were being railroaded?

And nothing the Republicans did was illegal.

 

The Open Meetings law is covered by Chapter 19 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Chapter 19.83 states:

"Every meeting of a governmental body shall be preceded by public notice as provided in s. 19.84, and shall be held in open session.
At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85"

Section 19.84 provides:

"Public notice of all meetings of a governmental body shall be given in the following manner:

(a) As required by any other statutes; and

(b) By communication from the chief presiding officer of a governmental body or such person’s designee to the public, to those news media who have filed a written request for such notice, and to the official newspaper designated under ss. 985.04, 985.05 and 985.06 or, if none exists, to a news medium likely to give notice in the area.

(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.

(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting."

It is a 24-hour waiting period not 48 hour but regardless, 2 hours is neither.

 

And the conservative-leaning judges on Wisconsin's Supreme Court believe the liberal-leaning Sumi had no right to make a judgement until the law went into effect, which seems rather odd.

RLM, can you site the Wisconsin law that the Supreme Court used as a basis for their ruling? It seems to me that (from a liberal perspective) Wisconsin's Supreme Court is just as guilty of political bias here. The law I'm looking for would reflect the higher courts assertion that the lower court had no right to make a judgement before the law came into effect (rather than having been recently passed).

 

That is generally the rule for every civil law suit and it is not limited to Wisconsin. In order to bring the case, you must have standing. i.e. you have to have been harmed. No one has been harmed by this law until it has been implemented. You cannot bring a suit because something might happen in the future.

 

Hey dipstick

The fact that the Democrats were hiding out in another state is good cause.

 

LeClown, are you saying they couldn't give 24 hours notice because the Democrats weren't in the state? What kind of LeDipstick logic is that? Keep reaching, the edge of the hole you are in is soooooo close.

 

Hang it up, union sympathizers. Your days of corruption and greed are fading away.

 

No assclown, IIRC there was a time constraint for the passage of the law related to the bond rating issue. If they didn't pass the law, it would have cost the State of Wisconsin millions of dollars. They waited in good faith as long as they could for the criminal democrats to return to no avail. Once it was apparent that the Demo****s were not going to come back, they posted the 2 hour notice and passed the law. Now I would call millions of dollars a good reason.

 

And long live corporate corruption and greed.

 

Now I thought that regardless of were the Democrats were if the State, The constitution said it required a 24 hour notice period to be given
Therfore if that is what was required can anyone show me were it stated in the state constitution that that rule was superceeded if member were not present in the state?
By giving the required 24 hour notice then any member who was not in the state at the time of issuing the notice would have time to get back.
What is it with you guy's and the constitutions of state and country is it only the bits that suit that count You know a form of pick and mix?

 

Read post #31 by moen and you will see that a 24 hour notice period is not to be given in every instance.