With Wisconsin's Supreme Court giving the go-ahead for the gutting of collective bargaining, there were plenty of unbelievable things popping out of the mouths of those in Madison on Tuesday.
"We conclude," reads the majority decision of the State Supreme Court's ruling on the collective bargaining bill, "that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used."
Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said, "The majority of the Supreme Court is essentially saying that the Legislature is above the law." And Barca's right. Lower courts (including that which is presided over by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi) were presented with evidence and had already said, "Yeah, you broke the open meetings law." And for those that purport Sumi was merely advancing her own agenda, why would she have said the same bill could be passed immediately--with no questions--if the Republicans just posted the meeting properly and took another vote? Or why would she have dismissed other cases against the bill's passage?
Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald's kid brother) said, "We didn't violate any rules. We upheld the Constitution all the way through..."
Maybe the Supreme Court agrees with you, Representative, but certainly Republicans violated the spirit of the law. Even the Walker-backing Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said in an earlier editorial that the Republican argument to the Supreme Court was "bizarre"--that even locked doors with but one member of the public as witness constituted an open meeting. As was the meeting decried by the Walker-backing Wisconsin State Journal.
Alberta Darling weighed in with her latest version of "Here's why I should be recalled," by laying the mess in Madison on Sumi and not the Republicans: "(Sumi) stepped all over the people of Wisconsin. You think of all the chaos and discord that's gone on in this Capitol as the result of her decision...To me, it was despicable."
Um, excuse me, Senator? The chaos was called by Sumi's action? Not by Republicans stripping collective bargaining? Not by Republicans cutting funding to schools and social programs? Not by Republicans courting business in Wisconsin at the expense of its people?
Perhaps the most remarkable came in the written declaration of Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, pointedly directed at her majority-voting colleagues: (from JS Online):
... the majority has "reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision." The majority justices "make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891."
In other words, she's accusing her colleagues of neglecting the proper execution of their duties--very strong words from the State's Chief Justice. I'm guessing she wouldn't have uttered those words unless she had sound basis to do so. For even more of Abrahamson's criticism, visit the Wisconsin State Journal article here.
Unbelievable. And we're only six months into Walker's regime. Hopefully, it's halfway over.
Showing posts with label wisconsin supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wisconsin supreme court. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 15, 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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Recounting the future of Kloppenburg
I happened across what I'd term a typical talk-radio discussion on WSAU in Wausau. The host was going on and on about JoAnne Kloppenburg requesting the recount that he said is her right under Wisconsin law in the Supreme Court race wth David Prosser.
And then a funny thing happened.
I agreed with him.
Well, not for 99% of it, but for some of it, anyway.
I, too, agree that I don't think a 0.48% margin will be reversed. As I wrote in a previous post , just as the conservative talker discussed, I don't believe the recall should be done because of the expense and the relative futility of any significant change (although--surprise,surprise--Minnesota's losing Republican 2010 gubernatorial candidate did the same thing with about the same margin--0.42%) . And the host said it was likely that Kloppenburg's camp would try to get the Brookfield votes declared illegal and thrown out (which, I agree, if they are found to be illegal, I would expect they should be thrown out).
But then the host mentioned something I hadn't really considered, that the recount would keep the issue alive and energize non-conservative Wisconsin voters for the upcoming recalls.
I thought about it, and I agreed again.
Gosh, I hope he's right (I mean, correct).
And then a funny thing happened.
I agreed with him.
Well, not for 99% of it, but for some of it, anyway.
I, too, agree that I don't think a 0.48% margin will be reversed. As I wrote in a previous post , just as the conservative talker discussed, I don't believe the recall should be done because of the expense and the relative futility of any significant change (although--surprise,surprise--Minnesota's losing Republican 2010 gubernatorial candidate did the same thing with about the same margin--0.42%) . And the host said it was likely that Kloppenburg's camp would try to get the Brookfield votes declared illegal and thrown out (which, I agree, if they are found to be illegal, I would expect they should be thrown out).
But then the host mentioned something I hadn't really considered, that the recount would keep the issue alive and energize non-conservative Wisconsin voters for the upcoming recalls.
I thought about it, and I agreed again.
Gosh, I hope he's right (I mean, correct).
Saturday, April 9, 2011
What, me worry?
Sure, changes in my working conditions and pay as a public employee will be further determined by a State Supreme Court decision. But, no problem, because the Court follows the state Constitution, right?
And it just so happens that it looks as though the candidate the Walker administration said would best further its agenda (1) happened to spring ahead in the election after all the results had already been announced.
And, just by coincidence, the clerk who found the votes in a pro-Walker county happened to work a few years back in a GOP caucus for Republican Assemblyman David Prosser just before the caucus was dissolved for illegal actions (a clerk, by the way, whose secretive and inaccurate vote-reporting methods have been criticized before). (2,3)
But I can rest easy regarding any improprieties because the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (who just happened to endorse David Prosser) has declared that the missing votes made sense. (4)
The Capital Times editorialized that if this had happened in Illinois, for example, and that the Dems there just happened to find 7500 more votes for their candidate (coincidentally, about the number needed to stop a recount), you bet people would scrutinize it. (5)
But, thank goodness, this is Wisconsin.
What, me worry?
Great link about civility in recall campaign: April 9 entry of Mark Peterson's Glenn Grothmann Watch
Thanks to The Political Environment for the Cap Times editorial tip.
(1) Walker agenda could be stopped, if Prosser is defeated, JS Online, 4/5/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119285829.html
(2) Election officials scrutinize Waukesha County results, JS Online, 4/8/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119486574.html
(3) Waukesha County clerk has drawn criticisms in the past, WI State Journal, 4/9/11, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_7e777016-62b2-11e0-9b74-001cc4c002e0.html
(4) The Waukesha Surprise..., JS Online, 4/8/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119476004.html
(5) Scandal in Fitzwalkerstan...,Cap Times, 4/8/11, http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_be206ecd-4b8d-571a-9fa2-cb4e5bf8e668.html
And it just so happens that it looks as though the candidate the Walker administration said would best further its agenda (1) happened to spring ahead in the election after all the results had already been announced.
And, just by coincidence, the clerk who found the votes in a pro-Walker county happened to work a few years back in a GOP caucus for Republican Assemblyman David Prosser just before the caucus was dissolved for illegal actions (a clerk, by the way, whose secretive and inaccurate vote-reporting methods have been criticized before). (2,3)
But I can rest easy regarding any improprieties because the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (who just happened to endorse David Prosser) has declared that the missing votes made sense. (4)
The Capital Times editorialized that if this had happened in Illinois, for example, and that the Dems there just happened to find 7500 more votes for their candidate (coincidentally, about the number needed to stop a recount), you bet people would scrutinize it. (5)
But, thank goodness, this is Wisconsin.
What, me worry?
Great link about civility in recall campaign: April 9 entry of Mark Peterson's Glenn Grothmann Watch
Thanks to The Political Environment for the Cap Times editorial tip.
(1) Walker agenda could be stopped, if Prosser is defeated, JS Online, 4/5/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119285829.html
(2) Election officials scrutinize Waukesha County results, JS Online, 4/8/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119486574.html
(3) Waukesha County clerk has drawn criticisms in the past, WI State Journal, 4/9/11, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_7e777016-62b2-11e0-9b74-001cc4c002e0.html
(4) The Waukesha Surprise..., JS Online, 4/8/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119476004.html
(5) Scandal in Fitzwalkerstan...,Cap Times, 4/8/11, http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_be206ecd-4b8d-571a-9fa2-cb4e5bf8e668.html
Sunday, April 3, 2011
So, um, Prosser never was a judge before, either...?
Amazing.
The adroit handling of the budget bills by Scott Walker and his pals has turned what should have been a cakewalk for the reelection of State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser into a real dogfight (pardon the mixed metaphors...). In the Feb. primary, in what was a relatively obscure race, Prosser garnered a commanding 55% of the vote, with Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg receiving but a scant 25%. (1)
Because of the well-warranted attention now given to the importance of this race's outcome and the future course of this state's law interpretation, we Wisconsinites have been subjected to obscene amounts of special interest money pouring into our state and airwaves, (2) literally spouting lies and misinformation from both sides (i.e., Kloppenburg put an 80 year old farmer in jail, Prosser knew about/did nothing about a pedophile priest). (3,4)
So that's given us a chance to focus on other things, such as Prosser's claim he was "deliberately goad(ed)" into calling the Wisconsin Chief Justice "a total bitch"(5) and the fact that Prosser's biggest personal selling point seems to be that Kloppenburg has never been a judge.
Guess what? Before his Supreme Court appointment by Tommy Thompson, NEITHER WAS PROSSER! (6, 7)
(From JS Online) "Walker himself dismissed the idea that the race would be a referendum on the bargaining law or his agenda." (8)
Guess what, Governor? You've made it just that.
And YOU gave Kloppenburg a shot.
Thanks.
ADDENDUM: The commercial pounding the airwaves right now is that Kloppenburg is weak on crime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court deal with constitutional issues, not criminals...?
(1) Prosser, Kloppenburg to Face Off in...Election, WI Law Journal, 2/16/11 http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/16/prosser-kloppenburg-to-face-off-in-supreme-court-general-election/
(2) Report: Outside Interest...ads, WI State Journal, 4/2/11 http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/16/prosser-kloppenburg-to-face-off-in-supreme-court-general-election/
(3) Politifaxt JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/apr/01/citizens-strong-america/ad-says-joanne-kloppenburg-jailed-80-year-old-farm/
(4) Politifact, JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/29/greater-wisconsin-committee/greater-wisconsin-committee-says-supreme-court-jus/
(5) Supreme Court tensions boil over, JS Online, 3/19/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118310479.html
(6) Capital Times, 4/3/11 http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_9f560a25-5a32-5c2f-834c-cbe3d2b5da30.html
(7) Justice Prosser website http://www.justiceprosser.com/index.php/about-justice-prosser
(8) Bit players dominate state Supreme Court race, JS Online, 4/3/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119128299.html
The adroit handling of the budget bills by Scott Walker and his pals has turned what should have been a cakewalk for the reelection of State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser into a real dogfight (pardon the mixed metaphors...). In the Feb. primary, in what was a relatively obscure race, Prosser garnered a commanding 55% of the vote, with Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg receiving but a scant 25%. (1)
Because of the well-warranted attention now given to the importance of this race's outcome and the future course of this state's law interpretation, we Wisconsinites have been subjected to obscene amounts of special interest money pouring into our state and airwaves, (2) literally spouting lies and misinformation from both sides (i.e., Kloppenburg put an 80 year old farmer in jail, Prosser knew about/did nothing about a pedophile priest). (3,4)
So that's given us a chance to focus on other things, such as Prosser's claim he was "deliberately goad(ed)" into calling the Wisconsin Chief Justice "a total bitch"(5) and the fact that Prosser's biggest personal selling point seems to be that Kloppenburg has never been a judge.
Guess what? Before his Supreme Court appointment by Tommy Thompson, NEITHER WAS PROSSER! (6, 7)
(From JS Online) "Walker himself dismissed the idea that the race would be a referendum on the bargaining law or his agenda." (8)
Guess what, Governor? You've made it just that.
And YOU gave Kloppenburg a shot.
Thanks.
ADDENDUM: The commercial pounding the airwaves right now is that Kloppenburg is weak on crime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court deal with constitutional issues, not criminals...?
(1) Prosser, Kloppenburg to Face Off in...Election, WI Law Journal, 2/16/11 http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/16/prosser-kloppenburg-to-face-off-in-supreme-court-general-election/
(2) Report: Outside Interest...ads, WI State Journal, 4/2/11 http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/16/prosser-kloppenburg-to-face-off-in-supreme-court-general-election/
(3) Politifaxt JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/apr/01/citizens-strong-america/ad-says-joanne-kloppenburg-jailed-80-year-old-farm/
(4) Politifact, JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/29/greater-wisconsin-committee/greater-wisconsin-committee-says-supreme-court-jus/
(5) Supreme Court tensions boil over, JS Online, 3/19/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118310479.html
(6) Capital Times, 4/3/11 http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_9f560a25-5a32-5c2f-834c-cbe3d2b5da30.html
(7) Justice Prosser website http://www.justiceprosser.com/index.php/about-justice-prosser
(8) Bit players dominate state Supreme Court race, JS Online, 4/3/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119128299.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)