PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Wisconsin Judge blocks Anti-collective bargaining law


banyon
03-18-2011, 11:14 AM
http://www.channel3000.com/news/27239147/detail.html

Judge Issues Restraining Order To Block Collective Bargaining Bill

Dane County DA Filed Lawsuit

Updated: 10:55 am CDT March 18, 2011

http://www.channel3000.com/2011/0218/26919399_240X160.jpg

MADISON, Wis. -- A Dane County judge has issued a restraining order on Friday to block publication of the state's collective bargaining law.

Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order to temporarily block the law as Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne had requested as part of his lawsuit.

Ozanne filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Republican legislative leaders of violating Wisconsin's open meetings law during the rushed run-up to a Senate vote on the measure last week.

Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a political stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law. The Republican majority voted last week to pass the legislation without Senate Democrats, who had left the state to block just such a vote. Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law last week.

The law can't take effect until it's formally published, and the Democratic secretary of state said he plans to wait the full 10 days allowed to publish it March 25.

Ozanne said he wanted a judge to block publication of the law so the case can be heard before the measure takes effect.

A spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald declined to comment, citing the legal fight. Messages left for comment with Walker's spokesmen, as well as Democratic legislative leaders, weren't immediately returned.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 11:14 AM
Yeah communists!

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 11:16 AM
Likely he is a left-wing activist.

Chief Henry
03-18-2011, 11:35 AM
Doesn't mean anything....several Federal judges nixed Obama care too

:rolleyes:

patteeu
03-18-2011, 11:35 AM
This is a trivial setback. The Wisconsin legislature can simply repass the law if necessary. In fact, it won't surprise me if they do just that even before the judge gets a chance to rule on the merits of the case.

go bowe
03-18-2011, 12:10 PM
if the only issue being litigated is the open meetings law, i'd say the dem's are a little desperate...

what do they hope to accomplish by delaying, for a relatively short while, the new law?

do they think the republicans will all lose in recall elections?

orange
03-18-2011, 12:17 PM
what do they hope to accomplish by delaying, for a relatively short while, the new law?


A lot of local governments are trying to get things done before the new law goes into effect.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — School boards and local governments across Wisconsin are rushing to reach agreements with unions before a new law takes effect that will remove their ability to collectively bargain over nearly all issues other than minimal salary increases.

Secretary of State Doug La Follette said Monday he decided to delay publication of the law until the latest day possible, March 25, to give those local governments as much time as possible to reach agreements. The law doesn't take effect until the day after La Follette publishes it.

Gov. Scott Walker had asked La Follette to publish the law on Monday, but the Democratic secretary of state, who called the new law the biggest change in labor management history in 50 years, said he didn't see any emergency that warranted him doing that.

La Follette said he heard from many schools, cities and counties urging him to delay enactment of the law as long as possible. Waiting the full 10 days afforded under the law is the usual practice of his office anyhow, La Follette said.
more: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/14/wisconsin-anti-union-law-effect-date/

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:29 PM
A lot of local governments are trying to get things done before the new law goes into effect.

Why would local governments be trying to do that if they have the interests of taxpayers at heart instead of the interests of their union employees?

banyon
03-18-2011, 12:32 PM
Why would local governments be trying to do that if they have the interests of taxpayers at heart instead of the interests of their union employees?

If they can lock in a reasonable deal in the interim and avoid strikes that deny their constituents services, wouldn't that be a scenario under which they should act?

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 12:35 PM
If they can lock in a reasonable deal in the interim and avoid strikes that deny their constituents services, wouldn't that be a scenario under which they should act?

LMAO

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:35 PM
If they can lock in a reasonable deal in the interim and avoid strikes that deny their constituents services, wouldn't that be a scenario under which they should act?

Any time they can do something reasonable, they should act. All else being equal though, the employees will lose leverage against the local government after the law takes effect. It's hard to believe that reasonable deals are available now that won't be available then.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 12:41 PM
Any time they can do something reasonable, they should act. All else being equal though, the employees will lose leverage against the local government after the law takes effect. It's hard to believe that reasonable deals are available now that won't be available then.

Define reasonable.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 12:42 PM
Define reasonable.

Yeah, that's the crux of the matter.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 12:43 PM
Yeah, that's the crux of the matter.

Banyon brought it up, maybe he'll clarify.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 12:45 PM
Banyon brought it up, maybe he'll clarify.

It's what banyon thinks is reasonable—including salary increases , or no decreases, during an economic depression:

"All the more to tax you with" said the Big Bad Wolf.

banyon
03-18-2011, 12:47 PM
Any time they can do something reasonable, they should act. All else being equal though, the employees will lose leverage against the local government after the law takes effect. It's hard to believe that reasonable deals are available now that won't be available then.

What I'm saying is that of the variables involved, wages are one, but there are many others, including the risk of a prolonged strike.

It was one thing for Reagan in the 80's to find other Air Traffic Controllers who were willing to take on good jobs with decent pay, but who is going to step up to take entry-level teaching positions? It's not exactly a glamor job at this point, nor one that is financially persuasive.

banyon
03-18-2011, 12:49 PM
It's what banyon thinks is reasonable—including salary increases , or no decreases, during an economic depression:

"All the more to tax you with" said the Big Bad Wolf.

As usual, you missed the point of the post entirely.

I simply offered a plausible rationale for wanting to negotiate now, not some particular policy stance. Another conflation "he is my enemy, so I must extrapolate to him the extreme opposing view" idiotic and typically illogical post of yours.

Sh*tty, of course, isn't even capable of understanding what we are talking about. He just continues to bleat and take our tax dollars for his extended unemployment.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:12 PM
I continue to bleat and take your tax dollars for my government job.

About right, kid?

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:13 PM
It's what banyon thinks is reasonable—including salary increases , or no decreases, during an economic depression:

"All the more to tax you with" said the Big Bad Wolf.

banyon is all about state control. He's a "good" nazi.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:15 PM
About right, kid?

He doesn't take mine. I'm not in Kansas.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:17 PM
He doesn't take mine. I'm not in Kansas.

bunyon doesn't know what else to do except get pissy at everybody else.

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:18 PM
He doesn't take mine. I'm not in Kansas.

You were an adjunct right? You were taking tax dollars too, ms. holier than thou.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:20 PM
I taught at a private college, Mr. ASSumption.

And I was referring to your being in Kansas which pays for its own prosecutors like I pay for mine here.

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:21 PM
I taught at a private college, Mr. Assumption.

Your students were on federal loans, ms. I didn't think of that. You were paid with proceeds from federal tax dollars.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:23 PM
Your students were on federal loans, ms. I didn't think of that. You were paid from proceeds from federal tax dollars.

Then those students have to pay for those loans back. So I am still paid by them. You still don't know how many were either.

Then again, that hasn't to do with public school teacher's pay directly.
Also again, I was talking about you just being in another state therefore it has no bearing on your taking any of my tax money. Get it now?

I am perfectly willing to be paid by student's directly in a free-market based on supply and demand for my services instead of defending a union, or a judge getting involved in the entire matter. In fact I prefer it. You ARE NOT in the same category!

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:25 PM
Then those students have to pay for those loans. You still don't know how many were either. Then again, that hasn't to do with public school teacher's pay directly. Also again, I was talking about you just being in another state therefore it has no bearing on your taking any of my tax money. Get it now?

It's pretty simple really. No federal tax dollars, far fewer students, far fewer teachers needed, adjuncts first to be cut, no you.

I just wanted to point out how ridiculous your petty pile-on with sh*tty (who's not a worthwhile ally) was.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:26 PM
shut up

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:27 PM
shut up

Yeah, I guess I'm back on the infantile fake ignore or whatever.

I'll continue to point out your intellectually lazy and dishonest arguments though.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 01:31 PM
Let's face it. We all collect some kind of government money either directly or indirectly. It's not a mark against any of our characters, it's a mark against the system.

We need prosecutors and adjunct professors and people like Mad Crapper and myself who preach truth on the internet. :)

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:33 PM
Prosecutors are a necessary evil. Less laws would lessen their workload though. Or do they like lots of laws to make their pay higher? One has to wonder.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:35 PM
Yeah, I guess I'm back on the infantile fake ignore or whatever.

I'll continue to point out your intellectually lazy and dishonest arguments though.

ROFL

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:37 PM
Prosecutors are a necessary evil. Less laws would lessen their workload though. Or do they like lots of laws to make their pay higher? One has to wonder.

I pretty much deal exclusively with gang members burglarizing homes, shooting at, and murdering people. I guess we can repeal those, huh?

The pure # of criminal statutes is of course a silly and irrelevant diversion. The obscure ones rarely get prosecuted in any event.

If I wanted my pay higher and gave a sh*t about that as my life's mission, then I would've taken any number of the higher paying private jobs that were waved in my face.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:39 PM
If I wanted my pay higher and gave a sh*t about that as my life's mission, then I would've taken any number of the higher paying private jobs that were waved in my face.

Sure you would have.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:43 PM
ROFL

I had taken him off because he wasn't here much, but I see it was a mistake.

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 01:45 PM
I had taken him off because he wasn't here much, but I see it was a mistake.

He's all pissy and petulant.

I think he needs a lapdance.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:47 PM
He's all pissy and petulant.

I think he needs a lapdance.

He should ask a Wisconsin female teacher to perform that for him if he's that sympathetic to their pay woes. ;)

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:48 PM
I had taken him off because he wasn't here much, but I see it was a mistake.

Hopefully, this will mean less of your inane interruptions.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 01:52 PM
Back on.

banyon
03-18-2011, 01:55 PM
Wouldn't have it any other way.

Should we count the time until the next fake ignore "accidental" encounter in days or weeks?

patteeu
03-18-2011, 01:57 PM
Wouldn't have it any other way.

Should we count the time until the next fake ignore "accidental" encounter in days or weeks?

LMAO

orange
03-18-2011, 02:05 PM
Likely he is a left-wing activist.

SHE seems unlikely to be an activist.

Judge Sumi was first appointed to the court in 1998 by Tommy Thompson, a Republican former governor, then elected in 1999 and 2005. Judicial elections are nonpartisan in Wisconsin.

This is a trivial setback. The Wisconsin legislature can simply repass the law if necessary. In fact, it won't surprise me if they do just that even before the judge gets a chance to rule on the merits of the case.

Looks like they're going to let the court cases play out. Maybe they don't want to overplay their hand again so soon.

Supporters of the measure, however, said the judge’s decision was merely a blip, certain to be overturned as various legal efforts make their way fully through the court system.

“This legislation is still working through the legal process,” said Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker, the Republican who led the measure to cut bargaining rights for public workers, including teachers. “We are confident the provisions of the budget repair bill will become law in the near future.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/us/19wisconsin.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

alnorth
03-18-2011, 02:06 PM
This is a really dumb lawsuit and ruling. The republicans can easily moot this case by voting on it again after giving public notice. They probably should to spare the expense of an appeal, and it wont matter if the Dems flee again.

orange
03-18-2011, 02:07 PM
This is a really dumb lawsuit and ruling. The republicans can easily moot this case by voting on it again after giving public notice. They probably should to spare the expense of an appeal, and it wont matter if the Dems flee again.

#41
:titus:

alnorth
03-18-2011, 02:10 PM
#41
:titus:

:spock:

I didn't predict they would, I read the story, rolled my eyes, and posted the blatantly obvious.

If they want to go through the hassle and expense of getting a higher court to slap this trial judge, fine but they would save taxpayers money by just voting again.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 02:10 PM
SHE seems unlikely to be an activist.

Judge Sumi was first appointed to the court in 1998 by Tommy Thompson, a Republican former governor, then elected in 1999 and 2005. Judicial elections are nonpartisan in Wisconsin.


I don't care if the person is male or female or even a Republican appointee. Some R appointees are progressives.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 02:12 PM
To me, this is like Obama re-swearing after Roberts blew the oath of office. He probably didn't need to, it was probably unnecessary, but if he didn't we'd be wasting money fighting more lawsuits from crazy people. So, just re-swear.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 02:14 PM
SHE seems unlikely to be an activist.

Judge Sumi was first appointed to the court in 1998 by Tommy Thompson, a Republican former governor, then elected in 1999 and 2005. Judicial elections are nonpartisan in Wisconsin.



Looks like they're going to let the court cases play out. Maybe they don't want to overplay their hand again so soon.

Supporters of the measure, however, said the judge’s decision was merely a blip, certain to be overturned as various legal efforts make their way fully through the court system.

“This legislation is still working through the legal process,” said Cullen Werwie, a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker, the Republican who led the measure to cut bargaining rights for public workers, including teachers. “We are confident the provisions of the budget repair bill will become law in the near future.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/us/19wisconsin.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

I don't see that as an indication that they'll wait for the court case to play out. They may, but I don't see it there. And I certainly don't see passing the law again to remove any technical obstacles to it's adoption as overplaying their hand.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 02:14 PM
To me, this is like Obama re-swearing after Roberts blew the oath of office. He probably didn't need to, it was probably unnecessary, but if he didn't we'd be wasting money fighting more lawsuits from crazy people. So, just re-swear.

Exactly.

go bowe
03-18-2011, 02:20 PM
He's all pissy and petulant.

I think he needs a lapdance.*perk* lap dance? *perk*

orange
03-18-2011, 02:39 PM
Judge orders temporary halt to collective bargaining law; state will appeal

ED TRELEVEN | etreleven@madison.com | 608-252-6134 madison.com | (179) Comments | Posted: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:42 am
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel/Associated Press .

A Dane County judge Friday ordered a temporary halt to Gov. Scott Walker's controversial measure curbing collective bargaining for public employees, saying a legislative committee likely violated the state Open Meetings Law when it rushed passage of the bill earlier this month.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled that a joint Assembly-Senate conference committee did not provide the public with adequate notice before approving the bill March 9, emphasizing the importance of open government in remarks during her ruling.

"This was something that would and did catch the public unaware," Sumi said, "what ended up being a closed session of a body in propelling legislation forward."

Sumi's decision was made soon after hearing arguments from Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne and Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar. There was no witness testimony. Sumi also denied a motion by Lazar to stay the restraining order pending an appeal.

Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said afterward that the state plans a quick appeal.

"The reason they have appellate courts is because circuit court judges make errors, and we think that happened in this case," Means said.

He added that the bill is significant to the state, and the ruling raises significant constitutional issues about when "a court can interfere in the legislative process."

The law prohibits most state and local employees from bargaining over anything other than wages and imposes higher costs on public workers for their health insurance and pensions. Walker says the measure is necessary to reduce state spending and give local governments the "flexibility" they need to adjust to deep cuts in state aid.

Sumi set a hearing on a longer-term order blocking the bill for March 28. That is expected to take much longer, with a number of witnesses expected to testify.

But in response to a question from Lazar, Sumi said she can't stop the Legislature from re-convening properly-noticed hearings and passing the bill again.

Friday's ruling bars Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law, the last step before it can take effect. La Follette had planned to publish the law on March 25, which would cause it to take effect the following day.

Walker, who signed the bill last week, had asked La Follette to publish it sooner. But La Follette said he saw no urgency to move the law ahead and wanted to give legal challenges a chance to run their course.

"I feel pretty good, to be honest," La Follette said, adding he received a lot of negative feedback from supporters of the law urging him to publish it. "It seemed prudent and conservative to wait and see what the courts said, and it turns out I was right."

La Follette also said more than nine in ten of all bills signed in the last two years were published on the tenth day.

"This wasn't something special," he said. "This is what we do unless there's an emergency and there wasn't an emergency here."

Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the legislation is still working through the legal process.

"We are confident the provisions of the budget repair bill will become law in the near future," Werwie said in a statement.

Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, who is also suing the state to block the bill from becoming law, congratulated Ozanne.

"The District Attorney is right and courageous to protect the rule of law, respect for citizens, the need for open, honest government from a governor and Republican legislators who have trampled those values," Falk said.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, had no immediate comment. Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, could not be immediately reached.

State Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, applauded the decision and said he hoped Walker would abide by it.

"In FitzWalkerstan, Republicans didn't follow the rule of law in their haste to bust unions and balance the Wisconsin budget on the backs of the middle-class," Pocan said.

In her decision, Sumi said she was making no judgment on the merits of the bill and was deciding only the open meetings issue. She said the state chiefly had to show a probability that it would succeed on the merits of its case and that irreparable harm would occur if it did not.

Sumi said that under state law, the conference committee was required to give the public 24 hours' notice of its meeting unless it had good cause to hold a meeting on shorter notice. Even that would have required two hours notice, she said. Lazar admitted during her argument that she did not have proof that the meeting was posted on a legislative bulletin board two hours before it began.

Lazar also argued that a violation of the Open Meetings Law merited forfeitures but not an injunction blocking La Follette from publishing the bill.

Sumi said, however, that the violation calls for a more serious consequence than fines.

"I think the question might be asked, how can something so apparently minor, the failure to provide timely notice prior to a meeting...stop a bill in its tracks," Sumi said. "My answer to that is: It's not minor. It's not a minor detail."

A hearing Friday afternoon on a similar lawsuit brought by Dane County was canceled following Sumi's earlier decision. A hearing on a motion by the state to dismiss the case is set for April 12. But by then, Sumi said, it may be moot.

"Who knows what events will unfold in the next couple of weeks?" she said.

State Journal reporter Mary Spicuzza contributed to this report.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 02:45 PM
Was there any warning when the Ds left the state? The Rs in Wisc should pass a law now that punishes that sort of thing to avoid a vote and hamstring the legislature.

patteeu
03-18-2011, 02:52 PM
Was there any warning when the Ds left the state? The Rs in Wisc should pass a law now that punishes that sort of thing to avoid a vote and hamstring the legislature.

One of the democrats has actually proposed a constitutional amendment that would prevent that from happening again. It's a case of "stop me before I flee again!" I guess.

Chief Henry
03-18-2011, 03:38 PM
Orange is having an orangasim with this little judges ruling. It won't last long.

orange
03-18-2011, 03:39 PM
Orange is having an orangasim with this little judges ruling. It won't last long.

It's orangasm.

Mr. Kotter
03-18-2011, 04:04 PM
The first battle in what will be a long court fight. Time will tell.

BucEyedPea
03-18-2011, 05:53 PM
It's orangasm.

Yeah but he thinks your an organism. :harumph:

orange
03-18-2011, 06:14 PM
Yeah but he thinks your an organism. :harumph:

You sure about that?

http://images.wikia.com/sims/images/2/26/The_Sims_EP_6.jpg

The Mad Crapper
03-24-2011, 12:20 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/union-work.jpg

Stinger
03-26-2011, 12:12 AM
Wisconsin Union Law Published Despite Court Order
Wis. law taking away collective bargaining rights published; disagreement over taking effect


Wisconsin officials couldn't agree Friday about whether an explosive law taking away nearly all public worker collective bargaining rights was about to take effect after a nonpartisan legislative bureau published it despite a court order blocking implementation.

The head of the Legislative Reference Bureau that made the move, as well as a nonpartisan attorney for the Legislature, said the action was merely procedural. But Republican legislative leaders, who encouraged the bureau's action, insisted it meant law would take effect Saturday.

Gov. Scott Walker's office, meanwhile, would issue only a vague statement saying simply that the administration planned to carry out the law as required.

The move is just the latest in a series of parliamentary and legal maneuvers employed over the past six weeks to enact a bill that prompted Senate Democrats to flee the state to block a vote and brought on waves of Capitol protests that grew larger than 85,000 people as Wisconsin became the center of a national fight over union rights.

Ultimately, the law's fate likely will be up to the state Supreme Court to decide. A state appeals court earlier in the week asked the Supreme Court to take up one of several lawsuits challenging its approval.

The latest chaos began Friday after the Legislative Reference Bureau published the law at 3:15 p.m.

Bureau director Steve Miller said the action doesn't mean the law takes effect Saturday. He says that won't actually happen until Secretary of State Doug La Follette orders the law published in a newspaper, and a judge ordered last week that La Follette not do anything.

"It's not implementation at all," Miller said. "It's simply a matter of forwarding an official copy to the secretary of state."

La Follette, however, said he didn't know what the action means — but he's not doing anything given the court order.

"I think we're going to have to get some legal opinion on this," he said.

Ultimately, the state Supreme Court will likely decide the law's fate. A state appeals court earlier in the week asked the Supreme Court to take up one of several lawsuits challenging its approval.

Bureau director Steve Miller said the action doesn't mean the law takes effect Saturday. He says that won't actually happen until Secretary of State Doug La Follette orders the law published in a newspaper, and a judge last week ordered La Follette to not do anything.

"It's not implementation at all," Miller said. "It's simply a matter of forwarding an official copy to the secretary of state."

La Follette, however, said he didn't know what the action means — but he's not doing anything given the court order.

"I think we're going to have to get some legal opinion on this," he said.

The judge's temporary restraining order last week specifically blocked La Follette from publishing the law.

Scott Grosz, a staff attorney for the nonpartisan Legislative Council, agreed with Miller and said the action meets certain obligations under the law, but nothing can happen until La Follette acts.

"And at this time the secretary's actions remain subject to the temporary restraining order," Grosz said in a memo to Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who said he went to the Reference Bureau with the idea, insisted the action means the law takes effect Saturday.

"It's my opinion it's published, it's on the legislative website, it's law," Fitzgerald said. "It was clear to me after our discussions this morning, if it in fact is posted and it says published and there's a specific date on it, it would be very hard to argue this was not law."

John Jagler, a spokesman for Republican Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, said he also assumed the action means the law takes effect Saturday.

Walker signed the collective bargaining measure March 11 and La Follette had designated Friday as the date of publication. But after the restraining order, La Follette sent a letter to the Reference Bureau saying he was rescinding the publication date.

The Reference Bureau said it's still required to publish every new law within 10 working days after it's signed by the governor, on the date designated by the secretary of state, so it went ahead on Friday.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice issued a statement saying it would evaluate how the publication of the law, which it said was lawful, affects the lawsuit that prompted the restraining order. The bureau's action did not require anything to be done by La Follette and he was not in violation of the court's order, the DOJ statement said.

The statement did not say whether the action means the law takes effect Saturday.

Ozanne's lawsuit and two others allege lawmakers broke the state open meetings law by hastily calling a special committee meeting to put the bill in a form that the Senate could pass it without the Democrats who had fled present.

The new law requires nearly all public sector workers, including teachers, to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance, changes that amount to an average 8 percent pay cut. It also strips them of their ability to collectively bargain for anything except wages no higher than inflation.

Union leaders were outraged by the latest twist in the saga.

"This is another sign that the governor and Legislature are in a desperate power grab to take away the voice of teachers, support staff, nurses, home health care workers and other public employees," said Mary Bell, president of the statewide teachers' union. "These tactics are not in the Wisconsin tradition of open government and do not represent the will of the people."

Marty Beil, executive director of the state's largest public employee union, said he didn't think the action meant the law was going to take effect.

"It's craziness. These guys are off the wall. They're drunk with some kind of power or misconception of reality," he said of Walker and Fitzgerald.

Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, called the action an "illegal backdoor maneuver."

"This is a dark day for Wisconsin and a travesty to our democracy," he said.

———

Associated Press writer Todd Richmond contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13224449&page=1

Der Flöprer
03-26-2011, 02:42 AM
Whether you like it or not, it's time to respect the wishes of the people. Suck it up and deal with it.

orange
03-29-2011, 06:56 PM
Wisconsin Judge Halts Further Implementation Of Union Law

TODD RICHMOND 03/29/11 07:19 PM ET

MADISON, Wis. — A Wisconsin judge for the second time directed the state to put on hold an explosive law that strips most public workers of nearly all their union bargaining rights, ordering officials on Tuesday to follow her original instructions to stand down.

"Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of (the law) was enjoined," said a visibly annoyed Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi. "That is what I now want to make crystal clear."

Earlier this month, Sumi issued an emergency injunction prohibiting the Wisconsin secretary of state from formally publishing the law – the final step before it could take effect.

Republican legislative leaders responded by directing the law be published by another state agency, and then declared it valid. State officials began implementing the law this weekend, stopping the collection of union dues for state workers and taking more from their pay for health care and retirement.

Sumi said Tuesday that action violated her original order, and she made it clear after a daylong hearing that the law was on hold while she considers a broader challenge to its legality.

The back and forth furthered the often angry debate between new Gov. Scott Walker, his Republican allies in the Legislature and the state's public sector unions.

Walker and the GOP have aggressively pushed forward their effort to remove the bargaining rights of state workers, using a surprise parliamentary maneuver to break a weeks-long stalemate to get it passed and then finding another route to publish the law after Sumi's order blocked the secretary of state from doing so.

State Department of Justice spokesman Steve Means said the agency continues to believe the law was properly published and is in effect. Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.

Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, Walker's top aide, issued a statement saying the agency will evaluate the judge's order.

"We will continue to confer with our legal counsel and have more information about how to move forward in the near future," Huebsch said.

The law requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also strips away their rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages.

orange
03-29-2011, 06:58 PM
They left out the part someone twittered where the Judge threatened anyone who screws around with it again.

State Department of Justice spokesman Steve Means said the agency continues to believe the law was properly published and is in effect. Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.

Wisconsin Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, Walker's top aide, issued a statement saying the agency will evaluate the judge's order.

"We will continue to confer with our legal counsel and have more information about how to move forward in the near future," Huebsch said.

I wonder what Stupid Republican Trick they'll come up with next. I hope it's a doozy.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 07:15 PM
They ought to just re-pass the law and be done with it.

orange
03-29-2011, 07:44 PM
They ought to just re-pass the law and be done with it.

The judge actually recommended that, along with "why are you wasting the taxpayers' money?"

I think it's gone beyond the actual Bill. It's now a fight over Courts vs. Legislature.

The Mad Crapper
03-29-2011, 07:49 PM
I wonder what Stupid Republican Trick they'll come up with next.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/various_uploads/Movies_to_the_Masses_160.jpg

Amnorix
03-30-2011, 07:20 AM
Was there any warning when the Ds left the state? The Rs in Wisc should pass a law now that punishes that sort of thing to avoid a vote and hamstring the legislature.

Do you actually read what you write? Could you please describe the parameters of this criminal law that actually restricts freedom of movement/travel by citizens of the United States that you want to impose? Inquiring minds want to know (well, laugh actually).

Amnorix
03-30-2011, 07:23 AM
They ought to just re-pass the law and be done with it.

QFT. I don't understand why they don't.

patteeu
03-30-2011, 09:12 AM
The judge actually recommended that, along with "why are you wasting the taxpayers' money?"

I think it's gone beyond the actual Bill. It's now a fight over Courts vs. Legislature.

Yeah, they should avoid that fight, IMO. If they're going to have that fight, they should do it with a less partisan issue.

Chief Henry
03-30-2011, 11:20 AM
[QUOTE=orange;7525539]The judge actually recommended that, along with "why are you wasting the taxpayers' money?"

QUOTE]

:LOL:

You must be talking about the dem state senators that skipped the state for 3 weeks ?