Another week, another likely illegal proposal from the Republicans. Now, to add to the indignity of not being able to find work, the Joint Finance Committee endorsed a proposal (in the budget, mind you) to require the unemployed to pee into a cup, so to speak. If a drug test is failed, or if the individual even refuses to submit to this affront, unemployment benefits could be suspended for a year (JS Online). A spokesman for the US Labor Department said, "Requiring a person to take a drug test as a condition of eligibility is not related to the 'fact or cause' of a person's unemployment and would raise an issue under federal law." And, in the same article, the ACLU rep says such testing should only be related to business or health or safety-related issues.
And this is in the same week in which running fake candidates in recall elections may not be illegal, nor are once-GOP-criticized late night meetings to approve things such as vouchers in Green Bay, and in the week the lock-step conservative Supreme Court may not find open meetings violations illegal.
Whew! That's a busy week. Even for Republicans.
And it's only Tuesday.
Showing posts with label open meetings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open meetings. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
WI Supreme Court: If I were a betting man...
Well, the WI Supreme Court started hearing arguments as to whether or not it should take on the collective bargaining atrocity of Walker and his pals. And, if they do, hmmmm, which way would they rule?
Not surprisingly,the four conservatives on the bench banded together during the hearing (to be fair, as did the other three justices). But, surprisingly to me, it doesn't appear they were challenging how the bill was advanced in an illegal meeting, but rather they were challenging Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's order blocking implementation of the bill as law. Conservative Justice Michael Gableman asked, during what the Journal Sentinel called "aggressive" questioning, if a judge can stop a law from being published, could a judge stop a senator from even introducing a bill?
That just sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Wasn't this about the legality of the bill's creation and passage in a violation of the open meetings law? If the meeting wasn't legal, would anything else matter?
Walker's Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John actually did address the issue of the open meetings law by basically saying the open meetings law doesn't apply to the Legislature, which was echoed by conservative Justice Patience Roggensack's comments. St. John went on to mention that the Legislature has the right to lock doors, and that even letting in one member of the public would satisfy open meetings requirements.
Either way this falls, it's a scary thing--the Court agreeing with this, or the Legislators in power actually believing what they say about open meetings. Attorney Lester Pines, who is representing State Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Madison) says, “I don’t hold the view that the court makes its decisions solely based on ideology.”
I wouldn't bet on it.
And, at this juncture, I'm not sure it would even matter.
Not surprisingly,the four conservatives on the bench banded together during the hearing (to be fair, as did the other three justices). But, surprisingly to me, it doesn't appear they were challenging how the bill was advanced in an illegal meeting, but rather they were challenging Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's order blocking implementation of the bill as law. Conservative Justice Michael Gableman asked, during what the Journal Sentinel called "aggressive" questioning, if a judge can stop a law from being published, could a judge stop a senator from even introducing a bill?
That just sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Wasn't this about the legality of the bill's creation and passage in a violation of the open meetings law? If the meeting wasn't legal, would anything else matter?
Walker's Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John actually did address the issue of the open meetings law by basically saying the open meetings law doesn't apply to the Legislature, which was echoed by conservative Justice Patience Roggensack's comments. St. John went on to mention that the Legislature has the right to lock doors, and that even letting in one member of the public would satisfy open meetings requirements.
Either way this falls, it's a scary thing--the Court agreeing with this, or the Legislators in power actually believing what they say about open meetings. Attorney Lester Pines, who is representing State Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Madison) says, “I don’t hold the view that the court makes its decisions solely based on ideology.”
I wouldn't bet on it.
And, at this juncture, I'm not sure it would even matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)