Posted on 03/21/2011 10:52:04 AM PDT by Steely Tom
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 it’s 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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.