March 25, 2011

Scott Fitzgerald had better hope he's wrong

I'm fairly confident he is, but just in case:
I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the Secretary of State.
That's from the Dane County circuit court order currently in force, which affirms not only the Secretary of State is the only official with the authority to publish the Act, but that "further implementation" generally is enjoined. If so, according to the outlandishly triumphalist statements made by Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald this evening, he could be flirting with a bigger problem than simply being ridiculous.

Because it appears he's trying to find his away around a court order.

And where you do that is in court, not on some Friday p.m. romp.

eta: Okay, now this is getting leagues beyond ridiculous:
"It's my opinion it's published, it's on the legislative website, it's law," Republican leader Scott Fitzgerald said. "It was clear to me after our discussions this morning, if it in fact it is [sic] posted and it says published and there's a specific date on it, it would be very hard to argue this was not law."
It's true because it's on the internet (not unlike Time Cube).

Seriously, lawyers told him this? Come on. They weren't from Waukesha County by any chance were they? Maybe the 9-11 guy?

I submit he and/or they be "carried ... feet first" out of the Senate.

ContinuedWisconsin statutes, a couple three of them


grumps said...

All this in a state where even the partisan hack of an AG says that the minutes of the meetings of the water commission of Dumptruck County aren't official if they're only on the Internets.

I mean, it's on the Internet that Fitz is a morally-challenged, legally ignorant sociopath.

mal said...

He's wrong.

From WisPolitics:

Dane County District Attorney Ismael R. Ozanne knocks down GOP contention with statement:

" ... I was even more surprised to learn that the impetus for an attempt at publication, contrary to Judge Sumi’s order, came from a named defendant in the lawsuit."