There is a somewhat disturbing policy issue to the argument made in defense of the legislature's process in this case — the implication that the rules the legislature makes for everyone else should not apply to the legislature itself. If, in this case, the Open Meetings Law is too burdensome for the legislature to follow, it is unclear why other units of government should be expected to follow them. — MULS blawg commenter Bruce ThompsonYes exactly. Although it's less an implication than it is a clear statement of the law. And that particular argument being made in defense of the legislature is being made in court by Republican Scott Walker and the Republican leadership in the legislature, and put forth by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is "representing the Republicans."
I don't know why those Republicans and their supporters in this grave matter don't just come out and say what their objective is: It is having the Wisconsin Supreme Court declare the Open Meetings Law — which guarantees reasonable public access to government — unconstitutional.
That's the takeaway, as they say. That's the real story.
The one that our librul media isn't reporting.
They've already tried locking all of the doors to the State Capitol and you know Scott Fitzgerald was aware of the law that he needed to provide at a minimum two hours notice for his March 9 twilight jamboree, as evidenced by the literally last-minute scrambling around to do so revealed by the sworn testimony in Judge Maryann Sumi's courtroom.
By the way, has Scott Walker's building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch ever determined whether any of the scuffed limestone piers were caused by Senate aide Rachel Veum's clogs? Anything's possible!
eta: [Wis. AG J.B.] Van Hollen is acting shamelessly, and shamefully.
At least somebody else gets it.