Skip to comments.Federal judge: Wisconsin union changes constitutional
Posted on 09/11/2013 1:22:35 PM PDT by markomalley
A federal judge has ruled Republican Gov. Scott Walker's controversial law stripping most public workers of nearly all their union rights is constitutional.
U.S. District Judge William Conley's decision Wednesday comes in a lawsuit Madison and Dane County workers filed in July 2011 alleging the law violated their constitutional right to freely assemble and equal protection because it imposes wage limits on union employees but none on non-union workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Scott Walker seems to be doing very well in Wisconsin; is there a future for him on the national stage?
“it imposes wage limits on union employees but none on non-union workers.
What are they bitching for? Didn’t the unions negotiate those wages?
If O hasn’t burned down the theater by then...
Yup. A low key guy who gets big things done. Not perfect, but very very good.
Scott Walker seems to be doing very well in Wisconsin
Principle and consistency. A winning combination. Too bad most Republicans don’t see this.
This will be Appealed until Judge-Shopping gains a favorable Liberal Activist Federal Judge (one who is in the NSA database with dirt on him/her, just as they did to John Roberts), and he/she will Rule in favor of the Communist Workers’ Party (Union).
“Conley wrote the law still allows workers to assemble and lets them speak; it simply doesn’t allow employers to listen.”
The judge probably wrote “it simply doesn’t ‘require” employers to listen.”
“A federal judge has ruled Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial law stripping most public workers of nearly all their union rights is constitutional.”
I wonder where the author of this article stands on this issue?
Well, I guess that overturns that local state judge that kept ruling against Walker. At one point I think he was trying to overrule his referendum victory as well.
By the way markomalley, you don’t have a relative with the first name of Martin in Maryland, do you?
You might want to check with the journalist's union on that question.
That is the BEST comment on FR today.
I’m kind of surprised that they didn’t try some sort of equal protection argument since Walker stripped the rights from some unions and not others.
it’s an AP article. Of course they’ll lie and distort the truth. If these obama ass-sniffing jornolists’ did their jobs, he wouldn’t be p-resident.
At the appellate level there’s typically a 3-judge randomly selected panel as the first step, then possibly ‘en banc’ or the full appeals court, before heading to SCOTUS.
Surprisingly, the article got it right. From the decision:
Under Act 10, general employees remain free to associate and represented employees and their unions remain free to speak; municipal employers are simply not allowed to listen.
I forgot about Walker for national stage. And also note that patriots are trying to encourage Judge Andrew Napolitano to consider run for Oval Office.
its like putting new carpet next to old tile. The new amplifies that contrast of the old. Old GOP people dont want people with principles and ambition. They cant compromise them, thus controlling them.
Neverheard of this guy. Any relation to Janet Napolitano over at DHS?
I actually hope not, too much frigging compromise occurs and then the inevitable beltway bubble crap occurs, on the national stage. It’s bad enough how the compromise is at the state level.
No relationship to Janet. Note that Judge Napolitano lost his Fx News Show for being too honest about the unconstitutionally big federal government. Here's a video of him reading the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I to clarify that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for healthcare purposes.
Private sector unions negotiate with the actual payers of their wages, so it is a true give and take negotiation, instead of a collusion to rob the taxpayers and scratch each others backs.
Public workers should not be allowed to form unions, period. If I am not mistaken, even FDR agreed with that--anyone?
Sounds like a fine candidate. I wonder if the name would hold him back with voters who don’t look too closely at the candidates; there are a lot of them.
Not all. Police and fire unions were excluded from the restrictions. That's why I'm a bit surprised they didn't try the equal protections gambit. If teachers lose their bargaining rights but police do not then wouldn't that fall under equal protection?
That should have read "union privileges".