If the way the law was passed is it question why don't they just hold another vote on it?
That would mean admitting they broke the law in passing it the first time.
That would mean admitting they broke the law in passing it the first time.
The judge should have thrown the guys trying to defy the order in jail
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M96I2G1.htm
The judges ruling is absurd, SHE should be in jail for ruling based on politics and not the LAW.
If so they are in good company - namely the President of the United States of America. Because this is exactly what's happening with Obamacare.FNE, yet once again you let your political bias rule your opinions. The judge issued a TRO-Temporary Restraining Order-to hold everything at the status quo until the court has a chance to rule on the legalities. She has not yet ruled on that matter.
A close look should be taken at whether there was a violation of the existing court order, and whether contempt of court proceedings are justified. Obviously this governor and state GOP feel they are above the courts.
FNE, yet once again you let your political bias rule your opinions. The judge issued a TRO-Temporary Restraining Order-to hold everything at the status quo until the court has a chance to rule on the legalities. She has not yet ruled on that matter.
A close look should be taken at whether there was a violation of the existing court order, and whether contempt of court proceedings are justified. Obviously this governor and state GOP feel they are above the courts.
Yes. Generally a judge can rule on a law that is not yet in effect if the case meets the appropriate standard for a facial challenge (as opposed to an "as applied" challenge).How can a judge rule on a law that was never even in effect? Can a judge rule on a crime that has not yet been committed?
Yes. Generally a judge can rule on a law that is not yet in effect if the case meets the appropriate standard for a facial challenge (as opposed to an "as applied" challenge).
I was answering the question that was asked, not commenting on the restraining order.She didn't rule on the law though. She ruled on it being published. She can't rule on the law itself because there is nothing illegal or against the constitution about it.
She didn't rule on the law though. She ruled on it being published. She can't rule on the law itself because there is nothing illegal or against the constitution about it.
I ignored most of your posts above because I did not know if you honestly had no idea of the legal issues and procedures you were ranting against or not. I do not suspect that you will ever actually attempt to understand what you rave about, but here goes:
In a nutshell the prime facie case to get a TRO (temporary restraining order) the movant must show irreparable harm would probably result from the disputed matter, and probable cause that the movant can prove the disputed matter invalid (constitutionally or in violation of existing law). If that showing is done the court issues the TRO-everything is put everything on hold for a brief time until there is a full hearing and decision on the issues.
That's what was done here. The full hearing is scheduled but not yet held. The governor decided to say F.U. to the court system and purported to circumvent the restraining order.
TRO's against controversial legislation are fairly common, just as they are fairly common in disputed elections.
And as to why this hasn't happened to health care reform, ask yourself this-even given all of the highly partisan GOP judges in the ENTIRE country why is it that the critics of that bill have not been able to find one judge willing to grant a TRO? Because their case is so weak they can't even establish a prime facie case IMO.
The bolded statement above is just patently FALSE and shows your own lack of understanding of the situation in Wisconsin. The Secretary of State publishes the laws in Wisconsin, The Gov has NOTHING to do with it. The law WAS published and the Gov is enforcing the law. If you want to argue the Secretary of State violated the judges order then go for it, but that doesn't mean the law isn't in effect or that Gov Walker had anything to do with it.
If this judge had ANY and I mean ANY valid reason to strike down this law she would have. She choose to attack and delay the law on procedural grounds. BTW, the Wisconsin supreme court in the past has ruled that laws passed, even if they violated procedures in getting passed, are STILL valid.
The Governor is doing the absolute right thing in enforcing this. The TRO is an attempt by a biased judge to delay the passage of this bill which absolutely without a doubt will be upheld by the WI Supreme Court. She knows this, the liberals know this, and the people know this. Madison is in an EXTREMELY liberal county in Wisconsin, nearly EVERY law this WI Gov, Congress, and Senate pass will attempt to be struck down by these partisan assholes.
Elections have consequences.
Except the Secretary of State did not publish the law, Walker had another official publish it, an office that never publishes laws. Even they questioned whether they had the right to publish it.
I agree; even though I like the legislation, the laws need to be followed in crafting it.This morning the law was struck down citing a violation of the open meeting laws.
http://www.wbay.com/story/14726450/2011/05/26/judge-strikes-down-collective-bargaining-law
Not the end of the story as it's still destined for the WI Supreme Court and they could avoid that by simply tabling the legislation again and following the proper process.
I agree; even though I like the legislation, the laws need to be followed in crafting it.
Besides, it'll be fun to watch the Dems run like light-shocked roaches again.
Ah, I stand corrected, thanks.In Special session, the open meeting rules do not apply the same as if they were in regular session. Also, these are legislative rules - not state "law".
In Special session, the open meeting rules do not apply the same as if they were in regular session. Also, these are legislative rules - not state "law".
Incorrect. They are state law, specifically Wisconsin statute 19.84(3) as it applies to the advance notice provision.
Senate Rule 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees or called by a joint resolution approved by both houses:
(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session or to the subjects enumerated by the committees on organization or in the joint resolution calling the extended or extraordinary session and is recommended for introduction by the committee on senate organization or by the joint committee on employment relations.
(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.
(3) The daily calendar shall be in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.
(4) Any point of order shall be decided within one hour.
(5) No motion shall be entertained to postpone action to a day or time certain.
(6) Any motion to advance a proposal and any motion to message a proposal to the other house may be adopted by a majority of those present and voting.
If you want to be technical, it could be called a "law" but it's legislative rules in all practical reality.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule 93