Skip to main content

Liberal Judges ruling shot down in flames...

 

 

Updated: June 14, 2011 5:32 p.m

 

Madison - Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated Gov. Scott Walker's plan to all but end collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.

The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part.

The opinion voided all orders in the case from the lower court. It came just before 5 p.m., sparing Republicans who control the Legislature from taking up the contentious issue of collective bargaining again.

Legislative leaders had said they would have inserted the limits on collective bargaining into the state budget late Tuesday if the court hadn't acted by then. But the high court ruled just before that budget debate was to begin.

The Assembly is to take up the budget Tuesday night.

The court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's ruling, which had held up implementation of the collective bargaining law, was void ab initio, or invalid from the outset.

In its decision, the state's high court concluded that "choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts."

The court concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/s...itics/123859034.html

der Elefant ist vom Aussterben bedroht 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Kangaroo court hands down predetermined decision.

 

In a fiery dissent,Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote that justices hastily reached the decision and the majority "set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation."

 

Abrahamson also said a concurring opinion written by Justice David Prosser, a former Republican speaker of the Assembly, was "long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...n-law-_n_877095.html

 

See also:

 

It revealed, by way of written opinion, a now ‘out in the open’ battle between the members of the court wherein the minority opinion bluntly and directly accused the majority of fudging the facts to reach the decision they had already determined they wanted to reach. The minority opinion further alleged that the majority was driven by political motives rather that the desire to deliver a fair and judicious opinion.

 

 

The notion that a minority opinion would level a charge of judicial cheating against brother and sister members of the court, in an opinion that will now become part of the Wisconsin judicial body of legal authority, is positively remarkable. I’ve read more cases in my life than I could possibly count and never-and I mean never- has anything I’ve seen so much as approached what I read in this case.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickun...tive-bargaining-law/

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:

Kangaroo court hands down predetermined decision.

 

In a fiery dissent,Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote that justices hastily reached the decision and the majority "set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation."

 

Abrahamson also said a concurring opinion written by Justice David Prosser, a former Republican speaker of the Assembly, was "long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...n-law-_n_877095.html

 

See also:

 

It revealed, by way of written opinion, a now ‘out in the open’ battle between the members of the court wherein the minority opinion bluntly and directly accused the majority of fudging the facts to reach the decision they had already determined they wanted to reach. The minority opinion further alleged that the majority was driven by political motives rather that the desire to deliver a fair and judicious opinion.

 

 

The notion that a minority opinion would level a charge of judicial cheating against brother and sister members of the court, in an opinion that will now become part of the Wisconsin judicial body of legal authority, is positively remarkable. I’ve read more cases in my life than I could possibly count and never-and I mean never- has anything I’ve seen so much as approached what I read in this case.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickun...tive-bargaining-law/

 

 

 

In other words, the Liberal judges are crying because it didn't go their way?

Figures.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The rationale of the SC decision is kind of eye opening.  The judges ruled that the legislature can ignore the procedural rules of the body at will, without repercussion, and without judicial review, or any other review for that matter.  Basically, the open meetings law is moot from now on. 

 

 

 

A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?  Isn't that about how "ObamaCare" came into being?

Originally Posted by Blind Melon Chit'lin:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The rationale of the SC decision is kind of eye opening.  The judges ruled that the legislature can ignore the procedural rules of the body at will, without repercussion, and without judicial review, or any other review for that matter.  Basically, the open meetings law is moot from now on. 

 

 

 

A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?  Isn't that about how "ObamaCare" came into being?

No.  And, no. 

The US Constitution forbids federal courts from interfering with the internal procedural rules of either house of congress.  In fact, it would probably be an impeachable offense if a judge tried to.

 

I suspect its the same for Wisconsin.  The recall elections will not change the law, even if all Democrats won.  Not enough to repeal the law.  Sorry Dems, its the law and until both houses of their legislature and the governor are Democrats, it will stay the law.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×