PDA

View Full Version : Wisconsin Appeals Court Opts Against Ruling Over Union Law



Apocalypse
03-24-2011, 02:26 PM
A Wisconsin appeals court says the state Supreme Court should decide whether a law that takes away nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers should be allowed to take effect.

A majority of the seven-member Supreme Court must agree to take it or it would remain in the appeals court.

The 4th District Court of Appeals said Thursday it is appropriate for the state's highest court to take the case because it presents significant issues that are likely to end up before the Supreme Court anyhow.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/wisconsin-appeals-court-opts-ruling-union-law/#ixzz1HXxm0C3E


Who didn't see this one coming?

Question is, which way does the Wisconsin SC lean.

fettpett
03-24-2011, 03:13 PM
A Wisconsin appeals court says the state Supreme Court should decide whether a law that takes away nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers should be allowed to take effect.

A majority of the seven-member Supreme Court must agree to take it or it would remain in the appeals court.

The 4th District Court of Appeals said Thursday it is appropriate for the state's highest court to take the case because it presents significant issues that are likely to end up before the Supreme Court anyhow.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/24/wisconsin-appeals-court-opts-ruling-union-law/#ixzz1HXxm0C3E


Who didn't see this one coming?

Question is, which way does the Wisconsin SC lean.

not really sure, but I do know that they have ruled that a law can not be brought before them nor stopped from taking affect over procedural issues

Novaheart
03-24-2011, 03:18 PM
Question is, which way does the Wisconsin SC lean.

Hopefully towards the rights of the workers to collectively bargain. If the state does not recognize this right, then why would industry? People died fighting for those rights.

fettpett
03-24-2011, 03:29 PM
Hopefully towards the rights of the workers to collectively bargain. If the state does not recognize this right, then why would industry? People died fighting for those rights.

bullshit...oh wait you mean the woman that supposedly hung herself over it...:rolleyes:

Wisconsin had one of the most extensive Collective Bargaining privileges out of ANY state. Wisconsin is finally getting in line with the rest of the country.

Articulate_Ape
03-24-2011, 03:29 PM
Hopefully towards the rights of the workers to collectively bargain. If the state does not recognize this right, then why would industry? People died fighting for those rights.

Please cite where in the WI State Constitution or US Constitution collective bargaining is referred to as a right.

Arroyo_Doble
03-24-2011, 04:05 PM
Question is, which way does the Wisconsin SC lean.

Hopefully, toward law.

fettpett
03-24-2011, 04:49 PM
Shirley Abrahamson-liberal
Ann Walsh Bradley-"non-partisan"
N. Patrick Crooks-"non-partisan"
David Prosser, Jr.-conservative
Patience D. Roggensack - "non-partisan"
Annette Ziegler - "non-partisan"
Michael Gableman - "non-partisan"

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpps/news/wisconsin-supreme-court-may-take-up-collective-bargaining-law-dpgonc-20110324-ch_12472170


Wisconsin's Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen appealed Judge Maryann Sumi's decision earlier this week, arguing that the Dane County court does not have jurisdiction over the state legislature.

It is not known when the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide whether it should rule on the controversial law. The appeals court decision kicks the issue to a court where conservative jurists currently hold four seats while three are held by more liberal judges.

One of the conservative justices, David Prosser, is up for re-election on April 5. His challenger is Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, who is garnering support from the unions and their supporters.

Prosser being up for re-election could pose a problem for the Court deciding whether or not to hear the case

NJCardFan
03-24-2011, 07:47 PM
Hopefully towards the rights of the workers to collectively bargain. If the state does not recognize this right, then why would industry? People died fighting for those rights.

To imply something is a right is implying that someone else's property is their right. In this case it's tax money. Tax money is taken from taxpayers with the threat of punishment so implying that collective bargaining is a right means that you believe those employees have a right to the property of the taxpayers. That said, public employees being able to collectively bargain was and has always been a privilege. Because of the financial problems of the state, Walker removed that privilege. A privilege that the unions abused for decades until now. So, in short, there are no provisions in either the US constitution nor the Wisconsin constitution that proclaims that collective bargaining is a right.

As for this piece of idiocy:

If the state does not recognize this right, then why would industry?

Industries were strong armed into collective bargaining. The threat of having your factory closed down, damage done to the property, and out and out physical abuse of dissenters forced the hand of industry. Basically, union thuggery, not some proclamation of a right, gave industry collective bargaining rights. Then once the unions got politicians in their pocket, the private industry sector's fate was sealed. Don't grant unionization and collective bargaining and we might go in and find something wrong. Force you to close and spend a ton of money bringing your factory up to specs. Want to expand? Well, there just might be some zoning issues. Want to peddle your wares. Well, there might be some licensing issues.

And to put the final nail in the coffin of this notion that collective bargaining is a right, if it was a right, then unions wouldn't need the permission of the employees in order to unionize a shop. They can just waltz right into a factory or whatever and set up shop. Why do you think the Democrats are all for this card check issue? Because in a private vote, a dissenter's vote is confidential and no one has to know how you voted. A public 'hand count' and the unions would know who to intimidate.

So, consider yourself educated on the issue.

Novaheart
03-24-2011, 09:18 PM
To imply something is a right is implying that someone else's property is their right. In this case it's tax money. Tax money is taken from taxpayers with the threat of punishment so implying that collective bargaining is a right means that you believe those employees have a right to the property of the taxpayers. That said, public employees being able to collectively bargain was and has always been a privilege. Because of the financial problems of the state, Walker removed that privilege. A privilege that the unions abused for decades until now. So, in short, there are no provisions in either the US constitution nor the Wisconsin constitution that proclaims that collective bargaining is a right.

As for this piece of idiocy:


Industries were strong armed into collective bargaining. The threat of having your factory closed down, damage done to the property, and out and out physical abuse of dissenters forced the hand of industry. Basically, union thuggery, not some proclamation of a right, gave industry collective bargaining rights. Then once the unions got politicians in their pocket, the private industry sector's fate was sealed. Don't grant unionization and collective bargaining and we might go in and find something wrong. Force you to close and spend a ton of money bringing your factory up to specs. Want to expand? Well, there just might be some zoning issues. Want to peddle your wares. Well, there might be some licensing issues.

And to put the final nail in the coffin of this notion that collective bargaining is a right, if it was a right, then unions wouldn't need the permission of the employees in order to unionize a shop. They can just waltz right into a factory or whatever and set up shop. Why do you think the Democrats are all for this card check issue? Because in a private vote, a dissenter's vote is confidential and no one has to know how you voted. A public 'hand count' and the unions would know who to intimidate.

So, consider yourself educated on the issue.


You haven't made a coherent argument, but you apparently serve the state well in other ways. Carry on.

Rockntractor
03-24-2011, 09:23 PM
You haven't made a coherent argument, but you apparently serve the state well in other ways. Carry on.

After post # 3 you have the audacity to say someone doesn't have a coherent argument?:rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-24-2011, 10:18 PM
Hopefully towards the rights of the workers to collectively bargain. If the state does not recognize this right, then why would industry? People died fighting for those rights.

FFS - how many times do people have to point out to you the difference between public sector unions engaging in collective bargaining and private sector unions doing it? :mad:

NJCardFan
03-25-2011, 01:24 AM
You haven't made a coherent argument, but you apparently serve the state well in other ways. Carry on.

What's not coherent about it, dicklicker? And what does my working for the state have to do with the price of eggs? Either counter my point with facts or shut your stupid cake hole.