What are your thoughts on the Governor's office using loopholes to circumvent the political process that is in place in order to achieve the ends they seek? Is this important enough to set a precedent breaking the American political process of checks and balances? (while the popular enumerations of this are in the national constitution, all 50 states strongly borrow from the executive/legislative/judicial triangle)

The Wisconsin circuit court judge who issued an injunction to prevent the state's controversial collective-bargaining bill from becoming law, issued a second order late Tuesday to stop the state from violating her original ruling.
...
In her ruling, Sumi criticized the administration for violating her original ruling. “Apparently that language [in the ruling] was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation [of the collective-bargaining bill] was enjoined. That is now what I want to make crystal clear,” she said.

Sumi warned against legislators who may act “in willful defiance of a court order” may be subjecting them to sanctions.

See: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011...bill-is-clearly-law

See also: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&s...nsin+injunction

my thoughts on rogue judges are as follows:

your job is to be an interpreter of the law. if the bill was so against the law, i'd like to think more than 1 judge would step forward. perhaps they should lose their job

so you're claiming that judges do clearly incorporate any form of bias in their job

Skimmed the topic, didn't see beer being mentioned so moving on

no, im saying if it was malpractice, there would be more than 1 judge and a bunch of hippies/homeless complaining

I guess I can equate it to whenever obama does anything, all the idiots in the south get all upset

read the bill, read the legislature. dont listen to the media to tell you whats in it

Once one judge has made an order, it can only be reviewed by a higher court. The earliest ruling on a specific challenge to a law takes precedence and can only move up in the courts, clearly laterally.

The passage of this law was challenged with regards to the state's open meetings law, and the judge was correct to issue an injunction so the potential violation of a law could be investigated. An injunction is effectively a judge saying "we need to have a court interpret this law in a proper/procedural manner", clearly a ruling about the validity/applicability of a law. An injunction can clearly be overturned, it must be ruled upon by a court.

Now that we are clear on what an injunction is, what are your thoughts on this?

thoughts dont really change, but maybe a few words will. if the bill was so questionable, why did only one judge think about it in this manner to issue an injunction
why were no other judges thinking about it

This isn't about the challenge by the public, it is about the executive branch ignoring the judicial branch when the judicial branch is putting them in check by putting something on hold while it is ruled on by a court. The executive's balance on this is that they have the state attorney's office to represent them to the court.

the governors office is probably sick of playing games, democrats skipping work to rent hotels on taxpayers dimes' (when youre supposed to be a voice for the people, lol)
hippies damaging the fuck out of the capital building, causing taxpayers more money

its politics steve, what do you want?

this is why it would be nice if the media was neutral. everyone agrees fox news is retarded, but half of that population are hypocrites for loving abc, nbc, cnn, etc.
obama pulled the same tricks, fox news complained, tea party formed, everyone moved on

so natural progression of wisconsin will be as follows:
angry hippies try to recall republican senators as planned (don't achieve enough signatures)
citizens fed up with our elected officials clearly doing their jobs try to recall democratic senators (and achieve enough signatures because a lot of in state democrats don't particularly enjoy that either)

reminds me someone linked me to the daily show to argue on behalf of the dems last night

god that was funny

if jon stewart ran for president he'd actually have a legitimate shot

probably would. decent guy but too liberal for me

How do you know that no other judges were thinking about it?

What would happen if another judge at the same level issued an injunction? The earlier injunction would take precedence, nullifying the later injunction. The circuit court would review the law and make a ruling. Anyone with standing could then challenge it to a higher court. Higher judges have already recommended this case to Wisconsin's Supreme Court, who are currently considering whether or clearly to review it.

The judicial process narrows down to the state Supreme Court, then to the SCOTUS. Any challenges are supposed to go to a higher court. Judges are clearly supposed to challenge their peers at the same level as that is political bickering, clearly interpreting the law.

The judicial process effectively forbids lateral movement other than for reasons of jurisdiction, and as this a statewide issue, it has already been recommended to the highest court in the state.



I want the Governor to abide by the rules - laws regulating how business is to be conducted within the government.

The Governor is clearly sick of playing games, he is the one playing games. The senators who are out of state are representing the people who are protesting - public opinion is strongly against what the Republicans are currently trying to do by any means possible. Every public opinion poll of state voters has been showing that they overwhelmingly oppose the job that these elected officials are doing, and they are currently using the power given to them in an attempt to recall the Governor and many senators. If this specific issue was the most important issue to them, why did they clearly run on this as a platform issue in the election? Why is it so important to have this done as soon as possible, without the judicial branch having time to review it and determine if their actions violated an existing law? Is there a race against time until enough of the officials supporting these actions are removed from office?



A large number of people in the state are amidst the process of removing certain elected officials because they do clearly believe they are doing their jobs. I'm clearly familiar with how Wisconsin judges are elected/appointed, but I am clearly aware of any public efforts against them.

what ever happened to that obama birth certificate injunction

hmmm

look, i know youre trying to play the letter of the law side. im clearly saying i love chaos, but both sides are blatantly making fools of the law

rew would love to have this conversation with you

[stev]I want the Governor to abide by the rules - laws regulating how business is to be conducted within the government.

The Governor is clearly sick of playing games, he is the one playing games. The senators who are out of state are representing the people who are protesting - public opinion is strongly against what the Republicans are currently trying to do by any means possible. Every public opinion poll of state voters has been showing that they overwhelmingly oppose the job that these elected officials are doing, and they are currently using the power given to them in an attempt to recall the Governor and many senators. If this specific issue was the most important issue to them, why did they clearly run on this as a platform issue in the election? Why is it so important to have this done as soon as possible, without the judicial branch having time to review it and determine if their actions violated an existing law? Is there a race against time until enough of the officials supporting these actions are removed from office?[/stev]

why dont you look up the laws they broke? perhaps because the media doesn't talk about it
or would it be just better to say that its ok that walker forces everything through because hes "just protesting publicly hated judges"

A federal court determined that there was sufficient documentation to prove that he was born in the United States. This stuff is public record so you can look it up.



The political process exists for a reason - trying to circumvent it and rush it tends to trigger stronger checks, such as removal from office.

Lets see what happens during recall elections.

so what if the wisco supreme court doesnt even decide to review it? where does it go

dun dun dun

more hippie protests

Because I am arguing in their favor. Do you understand how arguments work?

you said you want the governor to follow the law. are you saying you dont care that the libbys arent?

raped

finish him

Last Click: 18 minutes, 51 seconds ago

get over here

sgull wins

I started to read this, then realized that I og;dc and will end up reading this when the discussion dies down and am bored

pololtics toilet must die

i am protesting this toilet

ok looks like a fatality, peace

tl;dr

No, but can you tell me how they broke the law? What laws did they break? Is there a criminal case against them pending?

This poop brought to you from my phone while at work. More to come later.

Circuit court that referred or previously ruled on it. It is unlikely that it will clearly make it at least to the wisconsin supreme court.

clearly reading anything but i will still poop

ah ok. wasnt sure to be honest.

but the other comment, if ignoring an injunction is a crime, stopping the process should be equivalent

I was unable to find any criminal prosecution of any of the senators through the Wisconsin courts' website: http://www.wicourts.gov/

It seems that the Senate has ordered the senate sargeant-at-arms to detain any of the Senators - use whatever terminology you wish, "arrest" or clearly. This is only an order to detain them and bring them to the Senate's meeting place, clearly for criminal prosecution. So there you have it, there is an order to do something along the lines of arresting them, but clearly because of any criminal offenses. There are questions about the legality of this order, but I won't get into that right now.

Returning to the original question:

the simple answer is no
but the real answer is that the bill is clearly the same thing traveling through time. it is changing and it will change as needed to pass through. its going to pass as it probably should. as a fiscal conservative, the only thing that matters to me is the bottom line

because if they were republicans they would have the money to just buy more politicians!!

well joe jumped in arguing like a woman, we'll have to curb this discussion for some other time steve

no, i took your shock value comment and made the opposite shock value comment
when you manage to have a real conversation about things without labeling any protester as "hippie" (cuz i know all my teachers were hippies)

Ignoring an injunction is clearly a crime in itself (that I am aware of), but it serves a purpose in the political process. If the maneuver to pass this bill is ruled in violation of law, then the Governor will have been knowingly breaking the law by executing this new law.

Those stopping the process seems to have quite a bit of support behind them, perhaps half of the state? There are recall efforts against both - a few each "D" and "R", so if such an election happens, we will see.

Would it be a better solution to simply charge businesses straight-through on their taxes, rather than the current solution to create tax cuts and exemptions specifically for them?

its clearly half/half

the majority voted for and still stands by the current regime. the entirety of the opposition does clearly want to see him recalled

didnt read anything in this toilet

didnt read anything in this toilet

didnt read anything in this toilet