Have Wisconsin courts over-stepped their bounds?

MaggieD · Apr 8, 2011

MADISON, Wis., April 8 (UPI) -- Gov. Scott Walker's administration is appealing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to let its labor legislation become law.

Lawyers for the state Justice and Administration departments asked the court Thursday to lift a restraining order issued by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi, saying she exceeded her authority, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.

Sumi acted on a lawsuit backed by Democrats contending the bill, which slashes public employees' collective bargaining rights, was passed in violation of the open meetings law. The suit could take months to decide.

"The Wisconsin constitution clearly does not allow such actions by the judicial branch," the state's petition said. "When a court takes such actions, it violates fundamental principles of separation of powers and does serious and irreparable harm to our constitutional system of government."

The state also argues it is losing savings of $30 million this year and $300 million in the 2011-13 budget by being unable to implement changes to worker pay and benefits under by the union law.

Read more: Wisconsin asks court to allow labor law - UPI.com

By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

cpgrad08 · Apr 8, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

That;s what happens with Judicial Activism.

Mayor Snorkum · Apr 9, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

No so long as apparently valid arguments are used to justify the interference, in this case the "open meetings" law.

the correct thing to do would be for the Wisconsin legislature to meet and vote on the law in question.

cpwill · Apr 9, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

i'm going to become a judge and declare that a progressive tax structure violates the 14th Amendment, and that the founding fathers intended for jessica alba to dance naked for me every evening.

danarhea · Apr 9, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

I posted a thread a few days ago about the Federal judge that threw out a decision by an Illinois judge that limited collective bargaining in a hotel worker's union. In his decision, he quoted the National Labor Relations Act, and said that no entity had the right to interfere with union collective bargaining processes. The NLRA is Federal law, and state law cannot trump it. This would also apply to public unions. That is why the new Wisconsin law will be going down in flames, even if judge Prosser votes for it in a majority decision. This might end up in SCOTUS, and if it does, they will uphold the Federal decision. I believe that Scalia will be the justice that delivers on this decision. He may be Conservative, but he is not a social Conservative. He interprets the law strictly in all cases, without his personal beliefs getting in the way. In fact, he wrote the majority decision for the Larry Flynt case. I believe that Roberts may vote with the Federal decision too. I can't speak for the other Conservatives on the court, though, since I don't know enough about them.

samsmart · Apr 9, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

I think it's better to delay implementation of a contested law like this until it's been ruled on in court. After all, this law will affect so many people's lives and it would be worse if it was implemented and then reversed - just as much money would get wasted.

I'm not so much opposed to implementation of federal law because, after all, federal law usually doesn't go into effect until each state has time to implement it. But this is a state law and is poised to go into effect immediately. For better or for worse I think it would be better if implementation was delayed until it's get ruled on.

Patrickt · Apr 9, 2011

What could be more American than a mother standing up for her little boy, the union goon?

Mayor Snorkum · Apr 9, 2011

danarhea said:
I posted a thread a few days ago about the Federal judge that threw out a decision by an Illinois judge that limited collective bargaining in a hotel worker's union. In his decision, he quoted the National Labor Relations Act, and said that no entity had the right to interfere with union collective bargaining processes. The NLRA is Federal law, and state law cannot trump it. This would also apply to public unions. That is why the new Wisconsin law will be going down in flames, even if judge Prosser votes for it in a majority decision. This might end up in SCOTUS, and if it does, they will uphold the Federal decision. I believe that Scalia will be the justice that delivers on this decision. He may be Conservative, but he is not a social Conservative. He interprets the law strictly in all cases, without his personal beliefs getting in the way. In fact, he wrote the majority decision for the Larry Flynt case. I believe that Roberts may vote with the Federal decision too. I can't speak for the other Conservatives on the court, though, since I don't know enough about them.

The strictly applied Constitution states that all those powers not specifically enumerated as belonging to Congress belong to the states.

There is no specific enumeration granting Congress the authority to regulate labor relations outside of the federal employees themselves. Ergo, if the USSC is going to go the strict constructionist route, the NRLB will be declared null and void.

haymarket · Apr 9, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
The strictly applied Constitution states that all those powers not specifically enumerated as belonging to Congress belong to the states.

There is no specific enumeration granting Congress the authority to regulate labor relations outside of the federal employees themselves. Ergo, if the USSC is going to go the strict constructionist route, the NRLB will be declared null and void.

Its a very good thing then that the Supreme Court has not fallen down that particular bottomless rabbit hole on the way to the right wing Wonderland.

CriticalThought · Apr 9, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

If nobody contested that the Senate rules were followed, then nobody would have brought forward a case that argued that the Senate rules were not followed.

Chappy · Apr 9, 2011

CriticalThought said:
If nobody contested that the Senate rules were followed, then nobody would have brought forward a case that argued that the Senate rules were not followed.

Exactly! Two hours notice was not given prior to the so-called ‘emergency’ legislative conference meeting. The Democratic House minority leader was standing there stating that fact and the Republican conference members ignored him. This is really simple. The contempt the Walker administration and Republican legislative leadership hold for the Wisconsin people and their laws knows no bounds.

cpwill · Apr 10, 2011

danarhea said:
I posted a thread a few days ago about the Federal judge that threw out a decision by an Illinois judge that limited collective bargaining in a hotel worker's union. In his decision, he quoted the National Labor Relations Act, and said that no entity had the right to interfere with union collective bargaining processes. The NLRA is Federal law, and state law cannot trump it. This would also apply to public unions. That is why the new Wisconsin law will be going down in flames, even if judge Prosser votes for it in a majority decision. This might end up in SCOTUS, and if it does, they will uphold the Federal decision. I believe that Scalia will be the justice that delivers on this decision. He may be Conservative, but he is not a social Conservative. He interprets the law strictly in all cases, without his personal beliefs getting in the way. In fact, he wrote the majority decision for the Larry Flynt case. I believe that Roberts may vote with the Federal decision too. I can't speak for the other Conservatives on the court, though, since I don't know enough about them.

given the havoc that would cause (can you imagine the military unionizing?), i'm hesitant to accept that claim.

specifically the NRLB exists to "interfere" with "collective bargaining".

cpwill · Apr 10, 2011

Chappy said:
Exactly! Two hours notice was not given prior to the so-called ‘emergency’ legislative conference meeting. The Democratic House minority leader was standing there stating that fact and the Republican conference members ignored him. This is really simple. The contempt the Walker administration and Republican legislative leadership hold for the Wisconsin people and their laws knows no bounds.

gee wiz, guess they should have been in the state, huh?

samsmart · Apr 10, 2011

cpwill said:
gee wiz, guess they should have been in the state, huh?

Except it's legal for state legislators to be outside the state to prevent a quorum. However, it's illegal to violate the "open meetings" law. Since it's, you know, a law.

cpwill · Apr 10, 2011

:shrug: it was given a clean bill of health. i'm thinking that portion of the legal challenge goes nowhere.

rocket88 · Apr 10, 2011

cpwill said:
:shrug: it was given a clean bill of health. i'm thinking that portion of the legal challenge goes nowhere.

It was given a clean bill of health by Walker. I bet Obama thinks his health care reform is perfectly legal, but... The judges are still giving their opinion.

Mayor Snorkum · Apr 10, 2011

cpwill said:
:shrug: it was given a clean bill of health. i'm thinking that portion of the legal challenge goes nowhere.

They've had weeks now. Once the puppet court declares the law invalid by reason of the "open meetings" law, the Wisconsin Republicans can SCHEDULE a meeting, pretend to listen to the whiners, and then vote it back into place. That's how relevant the court challenge in this instance is.

haymarket · Apr 11, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
They've had weeks now. Once the puppet court declares the law invalid by reason of the "open meetings" law, the Wisconsin Republicans can SCHEDULE a meeting, pretend to listen to the whiners, and then vote it back into place. That's how relevant the court challenge in this instance is.

You are myopicly looking at only the single issue of the open meetings act. There will be many challenges based on other deeper and more substantive issues once this technical issue is decided upon.

digsbe · Apr 11, 2011

MaggieD said:
By freezing implementation of the labor legislation, are Wisconsin courts destroying separation of powers?

I say no court other than the Supreme Court should be able to delay implementation of this legislation. The Senate rules were followed. No one contests that. How is it that a judge can say, "No, you can't do that?" Think of the implications...

I agree with you. Part of the problem is that courts below the state supreme court have more judges and there is bound to be one that will make a ruling based on their political beliefs. We need to crack down on judicial activism. I think it violates the separation of powers.

Centrehalf · Apr 11, 2011

I think not allowing the Court in Wisconsin to have their say would be detrimental to the idea of seperation of powers.

samsmart · Apr 11, 2011

digsbe said:
I agree with you. Part of the problem is that courts below the state supreme court have more judges and there is bound to be one that will make a ruling based on their political beliefs. We need to crack down on judicial activism. I think it violates the separation of powers.

It's not judicial activism that needs to be cracked down on. After all, no matter what a judge rules it could be considered judicial activism. The judiciary has never and could never be free of political bias. But then again, that's not the role of the judiciary - the role of the judiciary is to serve as a check against the government's executives and legislators.

Mayor Snorkum · Apr 14, 2011

haymarket said:
You are myopicly looking at only the single issue of the open meetings act. There will be many challenges based on other deeper and more substantive issues once this technical issue is decided upon.

And they'll all fail because the State of Wisconsin legislated it's collective bargaining agreement and hence the State of Wisconsin can legislate the privilege away.

The Tenth Amendment makes it plain that the State of Wisconsin, not any federal regulation, controls how Wisconsin will deal with it's employees.

Only corrupt judges will rule otherwise.

Mayor Snorkum · Apr 14, 2011

Centrehalf said:
I think not allowing the Court in Wisconsin to have their say would be detrimental to the idea of seperation of powers.

The Left was all for the courts in Wisconsin having their say, until Prosser gained 7400 votes....

haymarket · Apr 14, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
And they'll all fail because the State of Wisconsin legislated it's collective bargaining agreement and hence the State of Wisconsin can legislate the privilege away.

Such a defender of BIG GOVERNMENT you are. Ronald Reagan and Abe Lincoln would spin in their graves.

Whovian · Apr 14, 2011

Mayor Snorkum said:
The Left was all for the courts in Wisconsin having their say, until Prosser gained 7400 votes....

funny how all the liberals posting negative things about the Wisconsin law, Prosser, Walker, etc... dried up and blew away when that happened, eh? :rofl:

Have Wisconsin courts over-stepped their bounds?

MaggieD

cpgrad08

American

Mayor Snorkum

cpwill

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

samsmart

Patrickt

Mayor Snorkum

haymarket

CriticalThought

Chappy

User

cpwill

cpwill

samsmart

cpwill

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Mayor Snorkum

haymarket

digsbe

Truth will set you free

Centrehalf

samsmart

Mayor Snorkum

Mayor Snorkum

haymarket

Whovian

Have Wisconsin courts over-stepped their bounds?

American

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

User

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Truth will set you free

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency