And again we have spinless GOP with not set of brass ones...
Time for the house to remove the judge.
The question that is not being asked, is “On what basis is this law in violation of either state or federal law?”
One would THINK that the GOP would be smart enough to run the bill through a set of legal authorities before voting on it. One would like to think that some measure of legal review took place, before the vote.
Sumi and I’ll suutu.
This is stupid. Judges cannot order legislators not to enact laws.
Scott Walker WILL get this state’s budget back in line. Time for thousands and thousands of layoff notices to go out. Mucho pronto.
Already in Breaking
How long is the “temporary” restraining order to remain “temporary?” And who defines it? And can I go to the bathroom now, Herr Sumi?
Now reality resembles Sponge Bob. Patrick has a paper crown and a paper plackard saying “KING”. So now he gets whatever he wants. The judge says the laws of the state of Wisconsin are not in effect, so they aren’t. He’s king, and he gets whatever he wants.
What gives this judge the power to rule a law is not in “effect”?
A county judge has authority to overturn state laws?
Oh good Lord.
I wish the various bloviators on this thread would EDUCATE themselves about what’s going on BEFORE posting personal attacks on the Governor.
The basis of the Democrat request for injunction was that the legislative meeting during which the bill was passed violates the state’s Open Meetings law. Here’s the relevant statute:
“Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.”
The Republicans gave 2 hours notice, stating that it was “impossible or impractical” to give 24 hours notice to the Dems hiding in IL. The Democrats disagree.
The injunction against the law being put into effect simply says that the state cannot implement the collective bargaining law until the decision about the Open Meetings law is made. This is not some huge victory for the Dems. It’s common practice — don’t implement a law until we’re sure that the law itself is legal.
Also, keep in mind the political realities in the state of Wisconsin. Half the population (admittedly, centered in Madison and Milwaukee) is as liberal as they come — think Boston or San Francisco liberal. The conservative half is widely dispersed through the rest of the state, which is quite rural. The Governor has done a hell of a job thus far and will continue to do so. Don’t insult the man personally because he doesn’t plow through every little bump.
So, we see once again a liberal judge making up law to win one for their tyranny. And, we will sit back and accuse those who have been on the front line of cowardice. And we will sit back and complain about how unfair it is. And, we will sit back and come up with ideas that others can do to push the issue. And we will sit back. When will we tire of sitting back while these tyrants steal our freedom and future from our children?
me thinks there needs be a WAr in Wisconsin.
Down with Verizon.
Joke, it’s a joke.
Any judges ever been hung in Wisconsin?
Come on, it’s a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm....just like Obamacare is un-Constitutional, but the implementation in pursuit of the Agenda is not slowed down in the least bit, whereas, in Wisconsin, a ruling that the law is merely questionable and being pursued on Appeal, they will HALT implementation.
This is one more example of why ALL judges EVERYWHERE — including the Supreme Court Justices of The United States — should now stand for election before the people at regular intervals.
There was a time when the judiciary didn’t seek to exercise the level of influence and control over the people as it does now, particularly the leftist part of same.
Laws and [most] public policy were passed/enforced by politicians elected to the executive and legislative branches of government.
But no more. We continually see judges and justices both overturning laws and implementing policy by judicial fiat. And thus, they are no longer merely judges or justices, but are now quasi-politicians.
As such, if they wish to continue to exercise such powers, it is only logical that they be subject to the same requirements of “elected” politicians — and that, of course, is to be required to stand before the people for election themselves.
One other thought. Do not the courts issue “opinions”? When did courts have the right to issue “orders”, other than for those purposes expressly authorized for them to do by state legislatures and the Congress? And yes, I know about Marbury v. Madison.
Andrew Jackson had it right.
Until ordinary Americans demand the same, there is little that can be done to halt the slide towards judicial oligarchy.
Just sayin’....