Breaking: Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstates Walker’s collective bargaining law

posted at 6:47 pm on June 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

Aw. And Judge Sumi tried so hard to stop it, too.

The vote, by the way, was 4-3, with Prosser in the majority. Although as I recall, even had he lost to Kloppenburg, his term wouldn’t have ended yet by the time of this decision.

The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state’s open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices – Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks – concurred in part and dissented in part…

Legislative leaders had said they would have inserted the limits on collective bargaining into the state budget late Tuesday if the court hadn’t acted by then. But the high court ruled just before that budget debate was to begin…

In its decision, the state’s high court concluded that “choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts.”

Remember, the objection here was procedural, that the Republican majority in the senate didn’t provide enough notice to the Democrats before bringing the CB bill to the floor and passing it. They could have cured the error by re-passing the bill with proper notice, but obviously they wanted to avoid that lest it jumpstart a new round of protests.

Legal Insurrection notes this passage, grounding the decision in separation of powers:

¶13 It also is argued that the Act is invalid because the legislature did not follow certain notice provisions of the Open Meetings Law for the March 9, 2011 meeting of the joint committee on conference. It is argued that Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) required 24 hours notice of that meeting and such notice was not given. It is undisputed that the legislature posted notices of the March 9, 2011 meeting of the joint committee on conference on three bulletin boards, approximately 1 hour and 50 minutes before the start of the meeting. In the posting of notice that was done, the legislature relied on its interpretation of its own rules of proceeding. The court declines to review the validity of the procedure used to give notice of the joint committee on conference. See Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d at 361. As the court has explained when legislation was challenged based on allegations that the legislature did not follow the relevant procedural statutes, “this court will not determine whether internal operating rules or procedural statutes have been complied with by the legislature in the course of its enactments.” Id. at 364. “[W]e will not intermeddle in what we view, in the absence of constitutional directives to the contrary, to be purely legislative concerns.” Id. The court’s holding in Stitt was grounded in separation of powers principles, comity concepts and “the need for finality and certainty regarding the status of a statute.” Id. at 364-65.

This news leaves me no choice but to unleash the ‘bot. Exit question: How will this affect the recall elections looming next month? Under normal circumstances, I’d say having the GOP re-pass the bill probably would have riled up the lefty base more than a court decision, but in light of the sturm und drang over the Prosser/Kloppenburg race, I wonder if his deciding vote here won’t animate them even more. (The donations in the recall efforts are already “ungodly” in their magnitude.) Ah well, let’s not obsess right now. Let’s dance.


Robot libido by sabotage

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

…grounding the decision in separation of powers

More of this please.

hillbillyjim on June 15, 2011 at 5:32 AM

got this from americanthinker.com, from the majority opinion:

7. This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature. It is important for all courts to remember that Article IV, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.” Article IV, Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides in relevant part: “(2) . . . No law shall be in force until published. (3) The legislature shall provide by law for the speedy publication of all laws.”

they brought out the boomstick on the lower court and used the Constitution as a means to reeducate the lower judge.
very nice.

ted c on June 15, 2011 at 5:40 AM

The most egregious thing about this mess was when the Dems walked out to try to kill the law. Yet the crrs of the world change the subject and distort and distort some more.

F Democracy eh crr? Really you are sad.

CW on June 15, 2011 at 7:23 AM

Well there’s something a little unseemly about 1) a Republican legislature telling the court they’ll render the lawsuit moot by re-passing the law if the Court doesn’t rule on this by Tuesday night, 2) the court rushing to decide the case before that deadline, and then 3) upholding the law along partisan lines.

It’s only unseemly if you don’t understand that 1) the law was valid, passed validly, 2) Sumi’s ruling was total B.S. (which the Supreme Court said it its ruling) and 3) there’s nothing “partisan” about upholding good law.

Unless, of course, like most liberals “good law” = laws I like while bad laws = laws I disagree with, regardless of how sound and Constitutional they are.

englishqueen01 on June 15, 2011 at 7:42 AM

The most egregious thing about this mess was when the Dems walked out to try to kill the law. Yet the crrs of the world change the subject and distort and distort some more.

F Democracy eh crr? Really you are sad.

CW on June 15, 2011 at 7:23 AM

I really would like to see a rule added stating if you abandon your office during legislative session the governor may appoint a replacement to fill your seat until the next election.

Roy Rogers on June 15, 2011 at 7:54 AM

You are trying to trap me into saying that I don’t think that redefining marriage will have an effect on society. Sorry, I am not biting on that one. The GAY judge clearly had a conflict of interest in this case, and it is not comparable to a heterosexual judge who would not benefit directly from the ruling he was making.

JannyMae on June 14, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Ah, ok. So it’s not comparable because it’s not comparable.

; )

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Well there’s something a little unseemly about 1) a Republican legislature telling the court they’ll render the lawsuit moot by re-passing the law if the Court doesn’t rule on this by Tuesday night, 2) the court rushing to decide the case before that deadline, and then 3) upholding the law along partisan lines.

Unfortunately, there is little rule of law in America anymore. Most appellate courts on any level – state or federal – decide cases based entirely on political affiliation.

sure, there are non-political cases that are decided by true legal analysis rather than politics, but even those are clouded.

Tort law cases for instance – lib judges almost always look for ways to expand tort law so as to allow recovery by the plaintiff (generally regardless of the merits of the case) and conservative judges go the other way.

In most cases that touch upon something where you can easily see the liberal v. conservative side of it, you can almost always geuss the outcome based on which party appointed the judges. All of the legal reasoning in the decisions is nothing more than rationalization for the outcome desired.

When it comes to constitutional issues, there are 2 distinct philosophies. Although never worded as such, as a practical matter the philosophies are 1) the constitution is simply a framework to be re-interpreted all the time to mean whatever we believe it means today (generally, this is used to expand federal gov’t power except as to abortion; or 2) the constitution had a specific meaning when written and that meaning needs to be applied.

But liberals should not be heard to complain about this state of affairs as they created it. Liberals have used the courts for over 50 years to create law and advance their agenda at the expense of rule of law and good jurisprudence. They created the rules by which conservatives have finally started to play. When a supreme court justice can vote 1) that the constitution has no personal right to bear arms but 2) that the constitution clearly has a right to abortion or uses international law to intepret the U.S. Constitution – it is difficult to take that person seriously as attempting to uphold rule of law or rational jurisprudence rather than simply pursuing an ideological agenda.

Monkeytoe on June 15, 2011 at 8:07 AM

How on earth could the ruling adversely affect heterosexual marriage? Certainly, you’re not claiming that there’s some type of material state interest in discriminating against homosexuals with respect to marriage, right?

blink on June 15, 2011 at 12:43 AM

Of course I am. I agree with JannyMae and others that gay marriage is a threat to the age-old institution of marriage which will denigrate the value and meaningfulness of every single heterosexual marriage there is.

So in sum, no one can rule on a gay marriage case. Gay people have a conflict of interest, because the ruling could benefit them at some point, and straight people have a conflict of interest, because the ruling will have a clear, harmful effect on their marriage or any marriage they may enter.

Perhaps bisexuals could rule on it, but even that’s doubtful.

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Gay people have a conflict of interest, because the ruling could benefit them at some point

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:09 AM

This is flawed logic and mischaracterizes JannyMae’s position.

Never said ‘at some point.’ It’s simple to identify a clear conflict of interest – it’s usually based on a current situation, not any possible foreseeable event.

Just because someone is gay does not mean they have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest isn’t as broad as you are trying to paint it. You are essentially trying to use reductio ad absurdum.

Fail.

fossten on June 15, 2011 at 8:17 AM

How sad that it is truly a time to celebrate when the obvious and correct ruling is made.

How sad, also, that the correct and obvious ruling is being smeared as “partisan.”

Religious_Zealot on June 15, 2011 at 8:18 AM

This is flawed logic and mischaracterizes JannyMae’s position.

Never said ‘at some point.’ It’s simple to identify a clear conflict of interest – it’s usually based on a current situation, not any possible foreseeable event.

Oh, I see. Is Judge Walker planning on getting married? Or is it just “possibly foreseeable” that he would want to get married?

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:19 AM

This is flawed logic and mischaracterizes JannyMae’s position.

Never said ‘at some point.’ It’s simple to identify a clear conflict of interest – it’s usually based on a current situation, not any possible foreseeable event.

Oh, I see. Is Judge Walker planning on getting married? Or is it just “possibly foreseeable” that he would want to get married?

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:19 AM

On this one, I have to unfortunately agree with CRR6. the bias issue is not a winner unless somone could show that Walker currently wanted to get married.

This case was always going to be decided on politics rather than the law, and in CA, chances were always that it was going to be a liberal judge deciding it.

This is the problem in a country that no longer has true rule of law.

Monkeytoe on June 15, 2011 at 8:26 AM

That poor old woman who was crying on the rotunda will die of cancer now ….

BrideOfRove on June 15, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Honestly, even you don’t believe this, right?

Good Solid B-Plus on June 15, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Obviously not, but JannyMae’s argument is obviously stupid as a legal matter (and the NDCA agrees!), so it’s just fun to screw around with her by using her own arguments against her. Here’s another one:

Judge Walker doesn’t benefit from this ruling anymore than you do. You also will have an equal right to marry someone of the same sex in California.

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:34 AM

I have no idea whether they screwed up or not. I haven’t been following this case very closely, and I know absolutely nothing about Wisconsin state law.

Obviously, the optics of this are pretty bad though.

crr6 on June 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM

So, you say: Obviously, I know absolutely nothing, I have no idea ……. yeah, pretty much sums up all your posts, and yet you chime in anyway.

Useful idiot.

Jerome Horwitz on June 15, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Oh, I see. Is Judge Walker planning on getting married? Or is it just “possibly foreseeable” that he would want to get married?

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:19 AM

I don’t know his situation. But the conflict of interest wouldn’t apply here unless there was something current. Judge Sumi, for example, had a clear conflict of interest in the Wisc union case given the status of her son.

fossten on June 15, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Judge Walker doesn’t benefit from this ruling anymore than you do. You also will have an equal right to marry someone of the same sex in California.

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:34 AM

Funny – I’ve heard the exact same argument used AGAINST gay marriage.

Gays have the same rights as heterosexual people do – they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose. Thus, there is no need for a law allowing gay marriage.

fossten on June 15, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Keep Wisconsin clear of election fraud, dump the election frauds in Minnesota.

Wade on June 15, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Judge Walker doesn’t benefit from this ruling anymore than you do. You also will have an equal right to marry someone of the same sex in California.

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:34 AM

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

–From Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

Wade on June 15, 2011 at 9:07 AM

I really would like to see a rule added stating if you abandon your office during legislative session the governor may appoint a replacement to fill your seat until the next election.

Roy Rogers on June 15, 2011 at 7:54 AM

Why not make a criminal offense to leave the state during the legislative session? Arrest them when they return.

Seriously.

BigAlSouth on June 15, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Jerome Horwitz on June 15, 2011 at 8:49 AM

The police acted stupidly.

csdeven on June 15, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Why not make a criminal offense to leave the state during the legislative session? Arrest them when they return.

Seriously.

BigAlSouth on June 15, 2011 at 9:12 AM

I’m good with that. Hold the line or you have no line to hold.

Roy Rogers on June 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Why not make a criminal offense to leave the state during the legislative session? Arrest them when they return.

Seriously.

BigAlSouth on June 15, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Just state that leaving the state to prevent a vote is an abdication of the seat. The governor will immediately appoint a replacement.

darwin on June 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM

Just state that leaving the state to prevent a vote is an abdication of the seat. The governor will immediately appoint a replacement.

darwin on June 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM

That’s the ticket!

Roy Rogers on June 15, 2011 at 9:34 AM

As I recall,the ruling was 9-0 that the Florida SC was wrong, and 5-4 as to 5he remedy.

davod on June 14, 2011 at 11:25 PM

The votes were 7-2 and 5-4 respectively.

PackerBronco on June 15, 2011 at 12:29 AM

There was a 9-0 ruling as well, before the 7-2 and 5-4 rulings. SCOTUS sent the “original ruling” back to Florida and asked them to try again. Their subsequent Judicial Activism was then rejected by SCOTUS 7-2 and then 5-4 for the remedy. And the Democrats’ attempt to steal a national election ended.

Interesting sidebar: the second time thru, Florida Chief Justice Charles Wells bitterly dissented from his cohorts. In his dissent he correctly predicted that their blatant Judicial Activism would be smacked down by SCOTUS, and he was proven correct.

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Obviously not, but JannyMae’s argument is obviously stupid as a legal matter (and the NDCA agrees!), so it’s just fun to screw around with her by using her own arguments against her. Here’s another one:

Judge Walker doesn’t benefit from this ruling anymore than you do. You also will have an equal right to marry someone of the same sex in California.

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:34 AM

So, I see you have admitted that you were being deliberately obtuse with your inquiries, and deliberately dishonest. Thank you! It lends so much to your credibility here as a commenter! /sarcasm

It’s fun to screw around with you and point out your stupid logic. As I pointed out earlier in the discussion, which you of course ignored, by your standard of comparison, no judges would ever be able to rule on anything,
because they might be Potentially affected by the outcome.

It’s like saying that a judge who also owns a business could never make a ruling that would have an effect on a business, is a conflict of interest. it would only be a conflict of interest if the PARTICULAR business he is ruling on is owned by him. Then he would have a direct stake in the outcome of the case.

JannyMae on June 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM

On this one, I have to unfortunately agree with CRR6. the bias issue is not a winner unless somone could show that Walker currently wanted to get married.

This case was always going to be decided on politics rather than the law, and in CA, chances were always that it was going to be a liberal judge deciding it.

This is the problem in a country that no longer has true rule of law.

Monkeytoe on June 15, 2011 at 8:26 AM

I agree, but that is not what I was pointing out in the discussion. I was pointing out that crr6′s contention that a heterosexual judge would be equally biased in the situation is ridiculous.

I was pointing out that her attempt at equivalency was stupid, because it is. Yet she, in her arrogance, now claims to have turned my argument around on me? Too funny!

JannyMae on June 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Ah, ok. So it’s not comparable because it’s not comparable.

; )

crr6 on June 15, 2011 at 8:04 AM

And once again you truncate what I say to cling to your equivalence argument. You really aren’t capable of honest debate, are you?

JannyMae on June 15, 2011 at 11:33 AM

blink on June 15, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I’m still trying to figure out how a Constitutional Amendment can be un-Constitutional.

Religious_Zealot on June 15, 2011 at 12:44 PM

You can’t have it both ways

Of course she can! She’s a liberal!

What annoys me most, though, is her pretense that I hadn’t explained my position. She plays those cutesy little games all the time. But, once again, she’s a liberal!

JannyMae on June 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I’m still trying to figure out how a Constitutional Amendment can be un-Constitutional.

Religious_Zealot on June 15, 2011 at 12:44 PM

That’s the funniest part, which amply demonstrates that there is no rule of law here. By the logic in the decision, any part of the CA constitution that a judge doesnt’ like is “unconstitutional”.

but of course, in liberal minds, all a constitution is is a vehicle by which the Court’s can legislate. The wording, stated purpose, or historical context of a constitution don’t matter – all that matters is the current sitting judge’s decision. Thus, if a judge were to decide tomorrow that the U.S. constitution now permits slavery, that would be perfectly acceptable. Of course the libs will claim that this isn’t so, but if they took a second to really think about their belief in a “living constitution” that can be interpreted to mean whatever they want, they will realize that means anyone can say the constitution means anything.

But if you dress it up in fancy langauge and pretend it is jurisprudence, somehow that makes it ok.

Monkeytoe on June 15, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I’m still trying to figure out how a Constitutional Amendment can be un-Constitutional.

Religious_Zealot on June 15, 2011 at 12:44 PM

As I understand it…

There was a proposition several years ago defining marriage. The California Supreme Court struck it down by finding a new constitutional right under the state constitution.

Then, another proposition which amended the state constitution was passed (Prop 8). This was challenged under the U.S. Constitution, not the California Constitution.

malclave on June 15, 2011 at 4:11 PM

It’s not over yet. Sore losers.
Union files federal lawsuit.

MJZZZ on June 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM

It’s not over yet. Sore losers.
Union files federal lawsuit.

MJZZZ on June 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM

They will attempt to thwart democracy at every turn.

CW on June 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM

A win against radical communist unions! It’s party time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeXv4bav54M

dave_ross on June 16, 2011 at 7:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5