Bill Lueders collects it. And it's really, really, appallingly ignorant.
The fact of the matter is, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi is on firm legal ground, and is following very conservative principles of statutory and constitutional construction. Failing a higher court's ruling according to the most circuitously reasoned of procedural arcana, there seems to me no way that Judge Sumi's temporary restraining order in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald can be vacated without finding the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law is itself unconstitutional.
April 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Fitz apparently told constituents in Juneau collective bargaining will be on legislative block again in June. One of many interesting things in that tweet stream.
I'm not from Wisconsin and I don't like either party, democrat or republican. I've kept up with the news and Wisconsin appears to be close to anarchy. Before any meaningful discussion can begin the subject matter of "union-busting" must be separated from "due process of law."
First of all I must say from the beginning of the entitlement legislation I kept asking myself "Who is in charge?" The democratic senators fled the state and union activists poured into the capital building. They repeatedly disrupted the legislature while it was in session. Death threats were called in. Let's forget political party -- some of the state senators feared for their lives and at least one person was arrested for the death threats. Where I come from, a building is evacuated after a death threat and it is searched. Judge Sumi, apparently unconcerned because of her political party, made things difficult for building security with some of the threats she made from the bench.
After republicans trimmed down the bill it passed in "SPECIAL SESSION" where the open meetings law is trumped by the legislative process according to WI statute 18.87.2. Democrats did the same thing when they were in the majority. NO advance notice was given or required. Two of the 14 democrat senators were there when they did the very same thing in special session to push through budget legislation at the last minute.
Furthermore, the open meetings statute says, and I quote:
" 19.98 Interpretation by attorney general.
Any person may request advice from the attorney general as to the applicability of this subchapter under any circumstances."
The statute says the state attorney general is the expert, and he is currently being sued by get this: county judge Sumi, pronounced "sue me." The state attorney general sued her by name.
One more thing about Sumi. Her son is a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO. The conflict of interest is obvious.
It's a mute point, but if 24 hour notice was given does anyone think a democratic senator would have showed up after being out of the state for 3 weeks? This probably would have given republicans the quorum they needed to pass the entire bill in its original form.
As a footnote, today I spoke with four people from the state of Wisconsin and they all said they're ready for a taxpayer's revolt.
I must ask once again WHO is in charge? This is disturbing. It appears not only Wisconsin, but our nation is headed toward anarchy where the mob rules.
Relax. Everything is going to be just fine.
Let's forget political party ... Judge Sumi, apparently unconcerned because of her political party ...
Oy.
The statute says the state attorney general is the expert, and he is currently being sued by get this: county judge Sumi, pronounced "sue me." The state attorney general sued her by name.
The statute says you may ask the AG for advice which, frankly, with 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee. Judge Sumi is not a party to this suit. She is the judge. The AG is not a party to this suit. The AG's office is acting as counsel to some of the defendants and attempting to act as counsel to at least one of them: the secretary of state (without much in the way of success, last I checked).
By the way, anarchy is not mob rule.
If Wisconsin is headed towards anarchy, wouldn't that be a sign that the executive in charge of the state (ie. the Governor) is doing a piss poor job of leading it?
P.S. Wouldn't any revolt be a taxpayers revolt as almost everyone is a taxpayer?
If you're suggesting anarchy would be an enormous improvement on the current regime, then I would agree.
The real issue with all of you is collective bargaining rights. It is apparent we can not have an intelligent discussion about "due process" until "political party" and "collective bargaining" are removed from it. I have no political party.
By the way judge Sumi has been slapped with a Writ of Mandamus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_mandamus
It's kind of like Barney Phife goes to Raleigh. What kind of hick state do you guys run up there in Wisconsin anyway?
"If you're suggesting anarchy would be an enormous improvement on the current regime, then I would agree."
"regime" that's cute and WI has two branches of government -- the elected branch and the union branch.
Be careful what you wish for. I wouldn't wish the LA riots on anyone.
Mike said: "P.S. Wouldn't any revolt be a taxpayers revolt as almost everyone is a taxpayer?"
To answer your question I have a parable for you Mike. A small church began to have financial problems. The membership was the same but less funds were available to take care of the sick and needy congregation members (on the church Medicaid program that was matched with denominational funds). Everyone was giving the same thing in the offering plate, but the pastor in his first year with this particular congregation was giving $5,000 more than the previous pastor after receiving a $50,000 raise above the previous pastor’s salary. His raise, based on his tenure with the denomination, was decided behind closed doors because the denomination’s open meeting bylaws allow this as an exception (the same as Wisconsin’s open meetings statute for union negotiations.) The church congregation wasn’t allowed to participate in this decision and his salary was 100% funded from their offering plate.
A government worker would say he's paying his fair share just like everyone else and he's a "taxpayer." A private sector worker would say he's a "tax-receiver." A smart congregation member would find another church where they have a voice.
The real issue with all of you is collective bargaining rights.
I don't know about "all of you" but that is the issue that got the present ball rolling, yes.
It is apparent we can not have an intelligent discussion about "due process" until "political party" and "collective bargaining" are removed from it.
Why not. Bring it.
By the way Judge Sumi has been slapped with a Writ of Mandamus.
What in the world are you talking about.
Post a Comment