PDA

View Full Version : Judge strikes down Wisconsin collective bargaining Law



Apocalypse
05-26-2011, 10:46 AM
MADISON, Wis. (AP) A Wisconsinhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110526/OSH0101/110526047/Judge-strikes-down-Wisconsin-law-taking-away-collective-bargaining-rights-from-state-workers?odyssey=nav%7Chead#) judge has struck down a law taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most state workers.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled Thursday that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin's open meetings law during the run up to passage. She says that renders the law void.


http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7l0fZ95N_jwAGVRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOWJuazJ oBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0g0NjVfODI-/SIG=1677mt8gh/EXP=1306442623/**http%3a//www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110526/OSH0101/110526047/Judge-strikes-down-Wisconsin-law-taking-away-collective-bargaining-rights-from-state-workers%3fodyssey=nav%7chead


Expected since her son is a Union Leader. Expect this fight to continue.

marv
05-26-2011, 10:54 AM
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110526/OSH0101/110526047/Judge-strikes-down-Wisconsin-law-taking-away-collective-bargaining-rights-from-state-workers?odyssey=nav|head

(snip)

The decision is not the end of the legal fight. The state Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for June 6 to determine whether it will take the same case.

Lawmakers could also pass the law again in order to nullify open meeting concerns that led to the judge's ruling Thursday.

...here we go again.

Arroyo_Doble
05-26-2011, 11:25 AM
This is a political issue, not a legal one. Wisconsin just held an election and those who were on the side of overturning the law lost. When you elect the members of the Court, the law means little. It is a political entity and it will decide on politics.

This decision will be overturned.

Odysseus
05-26-2011, 02:58 PM
This is a political issue, not a legal one. Wisconsin just held an election and those who were on the side of overturning the law lost. When you elect the members of the Court, the law means little. It is a political entity and it will decide on politics.

This decision will be overturned.

The law doesn't mean less because judges are elected, as opposed to chosen by those who are elected. The law means what it means, and the character of those who enforce it is more important than the means by which they are selected.

Arroyo_Doble
05-26-2011, 03:00 PM
The law doesn't mean less because judges are elected, as opposed to chosen by those who are elected. The law means what it means, and the character of those who enforce it is more important than the means by which they are selected.

I disagree.

pyackog
05-26-2011, 03:07 PM
The law doesn't mean less because judges are elected, as opposed to chosen by those who are elected. The law means what it means, and the character of those who enforce it is more important than the means by which they are selected.

If a lot of them had more character, that might be correct. If they base their decisions on their beliefs rather than the law though, then whoever selected them becomes real important IMHO.

Odysseus
05-26-2011, 03:44 PM
I disagree.
Well, that settles that. :rolleyes:

If a lot of them had more character, that might be correct. If they base their decisions on their beliefs rather than the law though, then whoever selected them becomes real important IMHO.
My point is that if they obey the law, then it doesn't matter who selects them. A poor judge can be appointed or elected. The issue is whether the legislative and executive branches demand that judges follow the law and impeach those that don't. Until activists who create law are thrown off the bench, there will be no law, just opinions.

pyackog
05-26-2011, 04:21 PM
My point is that if they obey the law, then it doesn't matter who selects them. A poor judge can be appointed or elected. The issue is whether the legislative and executive branches demand that judges follow the law and impeach those that don't. Until activists who create law are thrown off the bench, there will be no law, just opinions.

You better phrased the same point I was trying to make. The problem is that even when the activists leave the bench, they are being replaced with more activists.

fettpett
05-26-2011, 04:24 PM
sure it's a poltical issue, this woman has been holding up her ruling waiting for the WI Supreme Court case to be resolved.

On TOP of that, she should have recursed herself from the case as her son was a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council. Both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin. Now he runs a group called Left Field Strategies

The WI Supreme Court will decided to take the case on June 6th

Also, the ruling is bullshit because they followed the law, the WI open meeting law does not requrire them to notify members that of anything while the legislature is in session (as in "your suppose to be here to Work, not fucking around in Illinois) and because the bill does not require a quorum for a bill that doesn't spend any money.

wilbur
05-27-2011, 02:05 PM
Whether this will be overturned or not, will probable depend on one thing... lunch:

http://www.neatorama.com/2011/04/12/judge-more-likely-to-grant-parole-after-lunch/

Odysseus
05-27-2011, 02:31 PM
Whether this will be overturned or not, will probable depend on one thing... lunch:

http://www.neatorama.com/2011/04/12/judge-more-likely-to-grant-parole-after-lunch/

I like how the article assumes that denying parole is the less complex, and therefore less thoughtful, choice. Maybe as judges get hungrier, their senses are more honed and they are more discerning of arguments, but when they fill up, they get content and a bit lethargic and are more malleable. Considering recidivism rates among parolees, I'm inclined to think that the sharper thought is to keep them locked up. Clearly, judges need to kept hungry in the interests of public safety.

wilbur
05-28-2011, 12:14 AM
I like how the article assumes that denying parole is the less complex, and therefore less thoughtful, choice. Maybe as judges get hungrier, their senses are more honed and they are more discerning of arguments, but when they fill up, they get content and a bit lethargic and are more malleable. Considering recidivism rates among parolees, I'm inclined to think that the sharper thought is to keep them locked up. Clearly, judges need to kept hungry in the interests of public safety.

Whichever way their bias swings, that's the least troubling part - the troubling part is the bias, period.

I'll look forward to the day when we have the technology to outsource judging to computers.

fettpett
05-28-2011, 07:53 AM
Whichever way their bias swings, that's the least troubling part - the troubling part is the bias, period.

I'll look forward to the day when we have the technology to outsource judging to computers.

http://thepqnation.com/livingwicked/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Dumbass.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
05-28-2011, 08:32 AM
This is a political issue, not a legal one. Wisconsin just held an election and those who were on the side of overturning the law lost. When you elect the members of the Court, the law means little. It is a political entity and it will decide on politics.

This decision will be overturned.


Unfortunately you are correct here. Politicization of the judiciary is a REAL threat to freedom.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-28-2011, 08:32 AM
This is a political issue, not a legal one. Wisconsin just held an election and those who were on the side of overturning the law lost. When you elect the members of the Court, the law means little. It is a political entity and it will decide on politics.

This decision will be overturned.


Unfortunately you are correct here. Politicization of the judiciary is a REAL threat to freedom.

Odysseus
05-28-2011, 11:52 AM
Whichever way their bias swings, that's the least troubling part - the troubling part is the bias, period.

I'll look forward to the day when we have the technology to outsource judging to computers.

Oh, that will work out real well...
http://www.cityonfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Skynet.jpg

The solution to human error is not to mechanize our decision-making, it's to enforce civic virtues of objectivity and discipline and hold people responsible for the decisions that they make.

Rockntractor
05-28-2011, 01:00 PM
Unfortunately you are correct here. Politicization of the judiciary is a REAL threat to freedom.


Unfortunately you are correct here. Politicization of the judiciary is a REAL threat to freedom.
My perception has been duplicated!:confused: