Half of state senate faces recall efforts; lawsuit also filed (WI)

Wisconsin Reporter ^ | 3/2/2011 | Kirsten Adshead

[BubbaJunebug]

“They should hire NON-union contractors to do the cleanup.”

Hell 10 Mexicans could do it for a $100 a piece and be done by 6pm

[Buckeye McFrog]

Same thing in Ohio. They are already working to get a ballot initiative overturning the restrictions on collective bargaining. Hopefully the people will be smart enough to see through that.

[dfwgator]

Just cleaning the State Capitols ordinary Americans won’t clean.

[ljswisc]

WHEN the Judge-ordered opening of the Captiol resumes, the State should REQUIRE signing of a "Reposible for any damage and/or cleanup costs" by EVERY visitor.

Are you kidding? I agree with you but you know when Charlie Sykes went there on Wednesday he said the Wisconsin Historical Society is preserving every sign and piece of rhetoric and garbage posted that has ruined the walls! "Its part of Wisconsin history now!" Damage?? Its a collection!

A senator tried to remove something from one of the walls that was obscene and the police stopped him and told him he was not allowed to remove anything. If the same senator wanted to hang a piece of artwork in his office he'd have to get that approved.

[Robert357]

Personally, I would like to see some DA use the RICO statutes to go against the WI teachers union, the democratic party, AFofLCIO, and Obama’s organizing for America.

From the web.....

“When originally passed by Congress in 1970, the RICO Act was aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the influence of the Mafia and other organized criminal syndicates over the United States economy. In United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981), the Supreme Court held that RICO applied to both legitimate and illegitimate RICO enterprises. Before that decision, many lower courts attempted to limit RICO to “criminal”, “illegitimate” or “racketeering” enterprises. Given the ruling in Turkette, RICO could be used not only against the Mafia and other criminal organizations but it could be used against corporations, political protest groups, labor unions, loosely knit-groups of people. Literally, a RICO claim could be based upon the activities of any group or organization whose members pursue a common goal.

Many people believed that such an interpretation went well beyond the original intentions of Congress when it passed the RICO Act. Critics of the Turkette decision complained that the RICO Act should be limited to the Mafia, or drug gangs or other clearly criminal groups. But how can one develop a workable and objective limitation? How does one define a “clearly criminal” group? Are such enterprises made up of only Italians or Colombians? The lower court's were never able to answer this question, instead, they basically said: “we don't know how to define a ‘criminal’, ‘illegitimate’ or ‘racketeering’ enterprise but we know one when we see one.” That's not a legal standard that the Supreme Court is likely to approve - nor is it likely to approve a definition based on any racial or ethnic stereotype — especially when the statute does not provide for such a limitation. So, in Turkette, the Supreme Court ruled that when Congress used the term “enterprise” without limitation, Congress meant for RICO to apply to all enterprises — legitimate or illegitimate.”

[Robert357]

Actually, it sounds like someone else is thinking similar thoughts, but against the Dem-flight-Senators or at least one of them.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_b74ae846-45cf-11e0-aa11-001cc4c002e0.html