Skip to comments.Wisconsin Judge Halts Anti-Worker Law
Posted on 03/21/2011 10:52:04 AM PDT by Steely Tom
Excerpting for copyright concerns...
Article contains the usual "intentional misunderstandings:"
- The Wisconsin law "strips many public employees of their voice on the job"
- Republicans "rushed the bill through," even though the Democrats walked out on February 17th and the bill was passed on March 11, an interval of 22 days
The article claims that a "massive rally" was held "over the weekend." Here's a video of the "massive" rally; it looks to me like maybe two or three thousand people showed up, although it's hard to tell because the camera is at ground level.
The article asserts that "state and many public employees" have had the "right to collectively bargain" under Wisconsin law for more than half a century. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but see the article for the very artful wording that is used in making this assertion. While I harbor suspicions about this, I am unable to discover (via Google) what is the timeline for unionization of public employees in Wisconsin.
The article also includes the following quotes, all from union sources:
- Judge Sumi confirmed today what we knew all along that the bill stripping hundreds of thousands of hard working Wisconsinites of their voice on the job was rammed through illegally in the dark of the night"
-- Phil Neuenfeldt, President of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO
- Today justice prevailed. In Wisconsin and in America, we have a democratic process for passing legislation. Judge Sumi has ruled that Scott Walkers underhanded attempts to harm Wisconsins middle class will not stand.
-- Stephanie Bloomingdale, Secretary-Treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO
- State employees believe that nobody is above the law. We are gratified to see some of our so-called leaders finally held accountable for their illegal actions. They may think they can get away with ignoring the vast majority of Wisconsin citizens by attacking worker freedoms, but they simply cannot continue ignoring the law if we want to continue calling our state a democracy"
-- Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24
Oddly, no Democrat lawmakers seem to have been willing to provide a statement for the article. They do point out, at the end of the article, that the Dane County judge who issued the TRO "was appointed by Republican Governor Tommy Thompson," although it's hard to know what is the point of this observation, unless it's to underscore that Republicans tend to appoint judges fairly evenhandedly, without regard to their political party.
The headline just ticks me off. It’s like a one line editorial.
Another liberal waste of $5 worth of chemicals.
the senate makes it’s own rules, not the judiciary.
the judge is wrong. the law is on the side of the legislature.
I think more states will be copying Walker. ( if they have any serious interest in remaining solvent.)
Well, in fairness, the source media is run by the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, which does not claim to be an "objective news source."
I posted it because I did a search to see what sort of recent news existed on the Minnesota TRO. This was the only item I found that wasn't five days old or more.
I recall one article where they said the Senate got advice from several non-partisan sources, and they agreed that there was no need for a 24 hour open meeting notice because of the existing situation.
Or, better yet, reinstate the layoffs that he previously rescinded.
This is so obviously a case of legislating from the bench that I don’t see how the WI Pubs can avoid submitting a bill of impeachment.
“State employees believe that nobody is above the law. “
And that “nobody” is the union.
Oh, I wasn’t blaming you, I was ticked at the Liberal news source. You have to post ‘em as you find ‘em. Please don’t take it as a criticism.
What a completely biased article. The fact that the Democrats lie so strenuously about this issue should seriously undermine their credibility.
I spent an hour this morning reading Wisconsin’s 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (courtesy of Diana in Wisconsin), trying to determine whether the state employees’ benefits program is a closed, self-funding program like CalPERS in California. Unfortunately, I was overwhelmed by the numbers and by terms I didn’t understand, and couldn’t come to a conclusion. I did notice a few columns titled “Unfunded Liability,” which I think means the program was short on funds. Does the government have to pay any shortfalls? Anyone know?
What reason did the judge give?
This, in effect, obviates the need for two of the three branches of government in our established system. It establishes the precedent that we need two branches of government: the pure democracy of the people and the judiciary to tell the people when we have erred. If judges continue to be allowed to legislate from the bench and to over-ride the executive and legislative branches, they have too much power. Somehow, this tradition has taken hold in our legal system and our system of government. Remove them.
Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi & Her (SEIU, AFL-CIO) Political Operative Son
Lying liars lie!
I wonder if there is some way to word the legislation to the effect that the “State law shall comport with the Federal law regarding issues of rights for public employees to unionize”. In other words, is there a way to word it so that de facto the result is the same but the spotlight turns on the hypocrisy of how the Federal public employee bargaining laws are not being protested while Obama and minions snort around at the Wisconsin Republicans?
Do you know, that's the most important piece of information in the article, and I forgot to include it in my paraphrasal.
You can check the fourth paragraph of the article at the link, but essentially it comes down to this: the Wisconsin Legislature passed a law, or a rule, I'm not sure which and there could actually be no difference between the two because the Legislature makes laws, so any rule they make has the force of law, but anyway...
There is a law/rule that states that Conference Committee meetings may be called only when 24 hours advance notice has been given, unless there is an "emergency." The judge ruled that only two hours notice was given, and she could find no evidence of an emergency. Therefore, the TRO was issued.
Thanks for asking your question. This is the only new item in the story, except for the bloviations of the union's paid mouthpieces.
AND some of the Union members would NOT BE if given a choice..
FREEDOM... is being able to choose Union membership.. OR NOT..
How can the GOP play by the rules if the ruling was put forth by political motives which are clearly fraught with deceit and fraud. The judge ruled illegally and should be held responsible. Thrown off the bench and possibly a jail term.
Anti-Worker? How about Pro-Taxpayer? (naaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...)
Maybe the Governor has changed his mind and the Judge gives him an excuse to let all the unions negotiate new contracts.
The legislature could simply revote the issue making the Judge’s cr@p ruling moot.
The enemy within is the most overlooked menace in this country.
Walker should just ignore the judge and implement anyways.
The governor has the national guard, how many divisions does his honor have?
>the senate makes its own rules, not the judiciary.
I wish that were true; but the sad truth is that it’s not.
The Judiciary is, IMO, the single most lawless branch of government.
For example, in my State (NM) there is no law against taking a firearm (or other weapon) into a courthouse; such would violate the State Constitution which says:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
Any such law must violate the first portion of the first sentence there and, as the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that law enforcement have no positive obligation to ensure the safety of a private citizen against any other private citizen, *ANY* claim that the court’s “security” provides the necessary security for the citizen so that ‘weapons are not necessary in the courthouse’ is null and void.
Yet there is, posted on every courthouse from municipal to state, “No Weapons; violators will be prosecuted”-style signs.
It is particularly disturbing that some action which is not prohibited by an actual law might be prosecuted in a court of law.
After *months* of searching I finally found *something* in the way of official documents regarding the prohibition of arms in the courthouses; the Local Rules for the court’s district: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=1ce95e25.7bd11288.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%27LR3-113%27%5D **
The difference is that this judge issued an injunction, while the 0bamacare judge did not.
How is declaring something unconstitutional not an injunction?
Well, the Constitution would serve as an "injunction," I suppose, to a chief executive who accepted it as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Turns out - appointed by a Republican Governor or not - this judge is eyeball-deep in unionism (her son is a consultant to unions who gives credit to the progressive values of his parents), and she should have recused herself immediately!!
Check out the report at: http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/03/21/wisconsin-judge-maryann-sumi-her-seiu-afl-cio-political-operative-son/
Just happens to be that her son is a big SEIU and/or union operative.
Didn’t they just discover that the judge’s son is a union official?