AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 13:12:19 GMT -5
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,658
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 29, 2011 13:16:16 GMT -5
wow, that's some arrogance.
ETA: from Walker, I mean
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 13:17:13 GMT -5
Well after a law suit by 26 states Obamacare was declared unconstitutional, but it is still being implemented.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 13:29:32 GMT -5
It's right out of Obama's playbook. He's going to stop taking union dues out of paychecks- effectively de-funding the unions (unless you think union members are going to write a check). Then, when and if the unions "win", their member's paychecks will get smaller. It's a brilliant move. He's probably hoping for further court action to make this union member paycheck demonstration.
This is the beginning of the end of the union either way. He's about to win over 80% of the union members in Wisconsin and destroy the public employee unions forever.
It's a political master-stroke. It's hardball, the likes I have NEVER seen on the right. It's actually refreshing.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 13:41:18 GMT -5
It's right out of Obama's playbook. He's going to stop taking union dues out of paychecks- effectively de-funding the unions (unless you think union members are going to write a check). Then, when and if the unions "win", their member's paychecks will get smaller. It's a brilliant move. He's probably hoping for further court action to make this union member paycheck demonstration. This is the beginning of the end of the union either way. He's about to win over 80% of the union members in Wisconsin and destroy the public employee unions forever. It's a political master-stroke. It's hardball, the likes I have NEVER seen on the right. It's actually refreshing. Works for me.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Mar 29, 2011 13:50:38 GMT -5
It's right out of Obama's playbook. He's going to stop taking union dues out of paychecks- effectively de-funding the unions (unless you think union members are going to write a check). Then, when and if the unions "win", their member's paychecks will get smaller. It's a brilliant move. He's probably hoping for further court action to make this union member paycheck demonstration. This is the beginning of the end of the union either way. He's about to win over 80% of the union members in Wisconsin and destroy the public employee unions forever. It's a political master-stroke. It's hardball, the likes I have NEVER seen on the right. It's actually refreshing. So you are condoning this? It's ok for Walker but not for Obama?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 29, 2011 13:54:00 GMT -5
As Americans it is our God given right to thumb our noses at authority. America was founded and has a long tradition of civil disobedience and defiance.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 14:25:53 GMT -5
It's right out of Obama's playbook. He's going to stop taking union dues out of paychecks- effectively de-funding the unions (unless you think union members are going to write a check). Then, when and if the unions "win", their member's paychecks will get smaller. It's a brilliant move. He's probably hoping for further court action to make this union member paycheck demonstration. This is the beginning of the end of the union either way. He's about to win over 80% of the union members in Wisconsin and destroy the public employee unions forever. It's a political master-stroke. It's hardball, the likes I have NEVER seen on the right. It's actually refreshing. So you are condoning this? It's ok for Walker but not for Obama? I am not a lawyer, but my best guess is that some county court judge's questionable ruling in a case filed by someone of questionable legal standing carries a little less weight than a 71 page ruling by a federal court judge in a case filed by the attorney general of a state? If you look at the facts surrounding this little county circuit court judge's ruling, it's not ever going to stand, and it's doubtful it's even legal-- could even be grounds for impeachment of the judge who not surprisingly has turned out to be nothing more than a Democrat political hack in a robe. She should have recused herself in the first place- her son is a former AFL-CIO and SEIU employee and her husband has actually donated money to the campaigns of three of the fleebagger Democrats who left the state when it was apparent they were going to lose the debate. So, her son is a former union political operative, and her husband is a campaign donor to the fleebagger dems- so she is required by law to recuse herself- which she did not. It's doubtful her ruling has any force at all because she simply doesn't have the authority ignorethe clear language of the state statutes, the state constitution, legislative rules, and Supreme Court precedencts. And in February 2011, in the middle of a statewide debate regarding labor unions' collective bargaining, Judge Sumi refused the Madison School District's request to send teachers back to work. The district asked the judge to impose a temporary restraining order to bar teachers from participating in further work stoppages. It referred to the teachers' protests in the capital as a strike, which are illegal under state law. The judge refused to categorize the work stoppage as a strike and said that the district could not prove irreparable harm had been caused by the teachers. A judge cannot issue orders to the Secretary of State not to publish a law she doesn't like- the Secretary is in fact REQUIRED to disobey this order, because the law- by law- MUST be published.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 29, 2011 14:34:34 GMT -5
"........So you are condoning this? It's ok for Walker but not for Obama?......"
This is too easy, , , , but I've been told I do better when I only participate in the easy stuff anyway.
So let's turn it around and ask, "If it's okay for Obama, then why is it NOT okay for the governor?"
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 29, 2011 14:51:32 GMT -5
It was legally passed by Congress and Obama. The legality of how Walker passed it is in question, hence the court order. That was too easy. Okay, henryclay, let's hear your side.
So a certain Supreme Court judge should recuse himself in a certain future case then.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 14:52:27 GMT -5
If you can't win on the merits, cry about the procedure. Nice try, Dems- but you lost.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 14:54:12 GMT -5
It was legally passed by Congress and Obama. The legality of how Walker passed it is in question, hence the court order. That was too easy. Okay, henryclay, let's hear your side. So a certain Supreme Court judge should recuse himself in a certain future case then. Um, sorry- but you can legally pass an unConstitutional law all you want, but you can't ignore a federal court ruling that finds that law unConstitutional.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 14:54:57 GMT -5
It was legally passed by Congress and Obama. The legality of how Walker passed it is in question, hence the court order. That was too easy. Okay, henryclay, let's hear your side. So a certain Supreme Court judge should recuse himself in a certain future case then. I guess I don't understand how the question of a law's legality vs. a question of the legality of process should be treated differently?
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Mar 29, 2011 15:03:20 GMT -5
"........So you are condoning this? It's ok for Walker but not for Obama?......" This is too easy, , , , but I've been told I do better when I only participate in the easy stuff anyway. So let's turn it around and ask, "If it's okay for Obama, then why is it NOT okay for the governor?" I don't believe Obama is ignoring a court order. Paul has said he does over and over again. And yet he is supporting Walker in this instance.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Mar 29, 2011 15:05:34 GMT -5
This is all speculation, the same speculation that can be made about Obama and his so called ignoring of a court order.
The difference is that Obama responds to the court orders and usually gets a reprieve or stay.
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on Mar 29, 2011 15:07:50 GMT -5
So you are condoning this? It's ok for Walker but not for Obama? I am not a lawyer, but my best guess is that some county court judge's questionable ruling in a case filed by someone of questionable legal standing carries a little less weight than a 71 page ruling by a federal court judge in a case filed by the attorney general of a state? If you look at the facts surrounding this little county circuit court judge's ruling, it's not ever going to stand, and it's doubtful it's even legal-- could even be grounds for impeachment of the judge who not surprisingly has turned out to be nothing more than a Democrat political hack in a robe. She should have recused herself in the first place- her son is a former AFL-CIO and SEIU employee and her husband has actually donated money to the campaigns of three of the fleebagger Democrats who left the state when it was apparent they were going to lose the debate. So, her son is a former union political operative, and her husband is a campaign donor to the fleebagger dems- so she is required by law to recuse herself- which she did not. It's doubtful her ruling has any force at all because she simply doesn't have the authority ignorethe clear language of the state statutes, the state constitution, legislative rules, and Supreme Court precedencts. And in February 2011, in the middle of a statewide debate regarding labor unions' collective bargaining, Judge Sumi refused the Madison School District's request to send teachers back to work. The district asked the judge to impose a temporary restraining order to bar teachers from participating in further work stoppages. It referred to the teachers' protests in the capital as a strike, which are illegal under state law. The judge refused to categorize the work stoppage as a strike and said that the district could not prove irreparable harm had been caused by the teachers. A judge cannot issue orders to the Secretary of State not to publish a law she doesn't like- the Secretary is in fact REQUIRED to disobey this order, because the law- by law- MUST be published. I now totally admire Paul. You are frickin smart! ;D
|
|
|
Post by bobbysgirl on Mar 29, 2011 15:08:18 GMT -5
I now totally admire Paul. You are frickin smart!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 29, 2011 15:34:51 GMT -5
Um, sorry- but you can legally pass an unConstitutional law all you want, but you can't ignore a federal court ruling that finds that law unConstitutional. Too bad that is not the case- Walker is evidently ignoring an injunction- The president is complying with the law.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 15:39:36 GMT -5
The president is complying with the law.
Which has been declared unconstitutional be a Federal judge.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 29, 2011 16:09:38 GMT -5
And? It was declared Constitutional by others- neither of which matter as it is being appealed. He is not defying an injunction, as there wasn't one.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 16:14:13 GMT -5
Well Walker has an appeal in also
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 29, 2011 16:43:43 GMT -5
Well Walker has an appeal in also What is he appealing? The way I read it he is in contempt of court by publishing the law in violation of a court order. Get ready for a shitstorm of litigation. The judge ought to jail his ass for a little while.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 29, 2011 17:06:57 GMT -5
As the open meetings suit was pending, Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order that prevented Secretary of State Ken LaFollete from publishing the law, now known as Act 10. Publication of the law is the last step to putting a bill into effect, and Democrats argue that the law is not in effect until LaFollete issues the publication. However, another outlet can publish the law: the Legislative Review Board. That is exactly what it did last Friday, leaving Wisconsin Republicans to argue that the law is in effect. The Department of Administration has even begun implementing the part of the law where deductions for health care and pensions are made from the paychecks of state employees. Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/29/wisconsin-courts-legal-authorities-odds-budget-law-law/#ixzz1I1qWD5KSDoesn't sound like Walker violated the restraining order - it was against the Sec of State
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 29, 2011 18:02:47 GMT -5
It sure looks like contempt of court to me, but maybe just weaselly enough to squeak by. I'd bet the next order- if there is one issued- will be a little more specific. Looks like it does come down to whether that publication is sufficient- but there is no doubt he defied the intent of the injunction and is quite a tool.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 29, 2011 23:56:28 GMT -5
It sure looks like contempt of court to me, but maybe just weaselly enough to squeak by. I'd bet the next order- if there is one issued- will be a little more specific. Looks like it does come down to whether that publication is sufficient- but there is no doubt he defied the intent of the injunction and is quite a tool. What it will come down to is this order will be vacated because the judge is a political hack in a robe. Son is a former AFL-CIO operative, hubby gave money to the fleebaggers. Another judge is going to issue a "C'mon, really?" order (official legal term) at best. At worst, another more responsible judge will obliterate this ruling and excoriate this judge for even attempting to get away with this. Quite another story with judge Vinson.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 30, 2011 0:00:46 GMT -5
Well Walker has an appeal in also What is he appealing? The way I read it he is in contempt of court by publishing the law in violation of a court order. Get ready for a shitstorm of litigation. The judge ought to jail his ass for a little while. If Judge Sumi is smart, she'll leave it lie. However, that's a pretty big "if"- she is one dim bulb, apparently. She's running unopposed up there by the way for re-election for county circuit court judge. She's not unlike a lot of public officials who are used to making obscure, stupid rulings almost in a vacuum in some small venue where nobody really pays attention. I bet she, her AFL-CIO operative son, and her Democrat fleebagger political donor hubby are finding out what the national spotlight is like, and my guess is they are not enjoying the attention in this climate. The tide has turned. Conservatives are turning the page on the progressive era. Welcome to the "Leave Me Alone" era. We're just not gonna take it anymore.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 30, 2011 0:05:29 GMT -5
And? It was declared Constitutional by others- neither of which matter as it is being appealed. He is not defying an injunction, as there wasn't one. Have you read Judge Vinson's 71 page ruling? I have. Twice. When a law is found unConstitutional, the Constitution itself acts as an injunction. The Obama regime was strongly rebuked by the Court for violating the order; though Judge Vinson did voluntarily issue a stay of his own order-- not something he had to do-- and gave the regime a short reprieve during which he set a strict timeline for an appeal lest the order take full effect. The judge hinted at contempt of court in that admonishment of the regime. I don't know the status of it now- I'll have to research it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Mar 30, 2011 11:25:15 GMT -5
Well if both cases tell you anything- when a judge leaves an opening don't be surprised when someone takes it. Maybe the administration should have appealed immediately-it makes no difference really because everyone knows where this is headed, including the judge. Even so, the full effect applies only to his district- he doesn't have the authority to speak for the others. Besides, he is just a Republican political hack in a robe that ignores precedent- the WI judge did nothing wrong.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 30, 2011 11:34:25 GMT -5
Well if both cases tell you anything- when a judge leaves an opening don't be surprised when someone takes it. Maybe the administration should have appealed immediately-it makes no difference really because everyone knows where this is headed, including the judge. Even so, the full effect applies only to his district- he doesn't have the authority to speak for the others. Besides, he is just a Republican political hack in a robe that ignores precedent- the WI judge did nothing wrong. Judge Vinson is a federal judge, and he did not leave an "opening" a fact he made very clear to the Obama regime in his scathing rebuke in which he gave them a timeline to file an appeal by which time if they did not, he expected full compliance.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 30, 2011 11:46:06 GMT -5
Well if both cases tell you anything- when a judge leaves an opening don't be surprised when someone takes it. Maybe the administration should have appealed immediately-it makes no difference really because everyone knows where this is headed, including the judge. Even so, the full effect applies only to his district- he doesn't have the authority to speak for the others. Besides, he is just a Republican political hack in a robe that ignores precedent- the WI judge did nothing wrong. Judge Vinson is a federal judge, and he did not leave an "opening" a fact he made very clear to the Obama regime in his scathing rebuke in which he gave them a timeline to file an appeal by which time if they did not, he expected full compliance. Paul - isn't this the law suit filed by 26 states?
|
|