Finally, due process has prevailed...
First the Democrats unprofessionally left the State and their jobs to resist due process. By this I mean that the Voters elected their political Representatives, who are the Democrats to decide they can take their toys and go to Illinois?
Then the Democrats file this silly charge to delay the due process further. Like the Republicans would have had to be creative if the Democrats had come to work like any other employee would have been expected to !!!
Well thank heavens the Voter's representatives finally were able to do what they believe is correct. And if their actions do not represent the wishes of their constituents, then God help them during the next election cycle. The process works....
Thoughts?
LA Times Court allows Wisconsin's union law
HP Wisconsin Union Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
The Democrats don't work for the Republicans. They work for the people who elected them and the people who elected them wanted them to stop the Republican attack on workers. The Democratic charges weren't silly. The violation of the open meeting laws was clearly an issue when those meetings were held, and judges have since ruled on behalf of the Democrats.
--Hiram
There is nothing "silly" about expecting representatives to follow the state's open meeting law. All the GOP needed to do was pass the law again in accordance with the rules, which is what should have happened.
So what are your thought on real obstructionism, as found in the US Senate?
Hiram,
I assume most of us expect our representatives to support our views within the bounds of legal due process. Meaning that folks should show up at the office and do the best they can to influence reality. Not earn a wage for staying away from their workplace.
Next you will be telling me that you would support a Democrat that hires a hitman to eliminate the competition. I mean that would certainly stop the "attack".
Laurie and Hiram,
The Judges of the Wisc Supreme court have allowed the Law to stand, so I have to assume that due process was followed. (or at least close enough)
Now I saw the argument as silly for the following reasons:
- The Democrats were committing a much bigger breach of protocol in my opinion. (ie pot calling kettle black)
- Even if the "Open Meeting" process had been followed perfectly per the DFL's expectation. What difference would it have made? The GOP had the votes. The DFL was just trying to buy time and waste tax dollars by challenging a technicality.
Thus some more inflated Public Employee contracts were signed in the meantime. I wonder if the Supreme Court decision could make all those rushed contracts void???
Laurie,
Gridlock within the bounds of due process is different. Are the Senate Republican's showing up for work and using the legal tools that are at their disposal? Then I guess they are playing by the rules, no matter how strange we perceive them to be...
Nothing the Wisconsin legislators did was illegal or violated any due process that I am aware of. Legislators are not employees who are required by the terms of their employment to show up at a place of work. I am sure they were quite busy in Illinois, among other things, finding ways to run their offices.
There is a qualitative difference between hiring hitmen, and representing constituents.
--Hiram
"The Democrats were committing a much bigger breach of protocol in my opinion."
When I balance maintaining the niceties of protocol with protecting the interests of Wisconsin's workers, I have no problem at all with coming down on the side of the workers.
--Hiram
I have no qualms in coming down on the side of the employer, in this case the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin who were being taxed into oblivion so the PEU could ride the gravy train a while longer.
J. Ewing
An interesting post on the legality...
Hot Air Senate Rule 23
And it makes sense that they were violating the Wisconsin statutes... That's why they had to leave the state, otherwise the Wisconsin State Patrol had authority to pick them up. So apparently they were breaking the rules...
_____________
"There is a qualitative difference between hiring hitmen, and representing constituents."
How far should Politicians be allowed to go to represent their constituents?
I am certain the the GOP Politicians feel they are representing their constituents, yet you call foul with regard to the open mtg question.
Should Politicians we agree with be given the latitude to figuratively commit murder if it supports our viewpoint?
It seems to be how the far LEFT and RIGHT folks think... "The Ends justifies the Means..." Thank heavens for the Judicial branch.
it's too bad the judicial branch has become partisan at the state as well as federal level. It seems that something as basic as whether or not an open meeting law was followed should result in an unanimous opinion rather than a party line split.
Apparently the ruling was whether the lower court judge had the authority to issue the restraining order... They did not review the open mtg question according to this article.
Still, you are right that these split verdicts are interesting. Now is it just gray areas or politics? I don't know, but I like to believe in good intent unless proven otherwise.
And since judges are human, I suppose they can be Conservative or Liberal in their interpretations without being politically motivated... Just like us.
CBS Union Law
The decision looks to be clearly based on politics to me.
"The ruling was 4 to 3, split along what many viewed as the court’s predictable conservative-liberal line. One of the dissenting justices even raised the specter of a “partisan slant” by the other side."
Wisconsin court...
"How far should Politicians be allowed to go to represent their constituents?"
Pretty darn far. That's who they work for, the one's with the power to hire and fire them.
"I am certain the the GOP Politicians feel they are representing their constituents, yet you call foul with regard to the open mtg question."
I am not sure I did. It was a question of law, one I note was resolved in their favor. Legislators just like the rest of us are required to obey the law. Curiously, in this instance the legislators seemed to go out of their way to at least raise the questions. Why didn't they follow statutory procedure according the the letter of the law? They did have the votes?
"Should Politicians we agree with be given the latitude to figuratively commit murder if it supports our viewpoint?"
No. Legislators we agree with and disagree with should follow the law. The senate rule, by the way, isn't a law. It's more in the nature of a helpful hint.
--Hiram
"I have no qualms in coming down on the side of the employer, in this case the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin who were being taxed into oblivion so the PEU could ride the gravy train a while longer."
Legislators don't work for taxpayers, they work for people who live in their district, whether they are taxpayers or not, voters or not, citizens or not. If they don't like the way they are doing their jobs, the voters among them have option to fire them.
--Hiram
It occurs to me that there are two ways, maybe more, to look at the problem of "politicized" court rulings. The way I choose to look at it is that every court has the ability to rule either yea or nay on some question. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the conservative justices rule correctly on the question before them and that the liberal justices are wrong to dissent. In other words, there SHOULD be a unanimous decision, but the liberal judges won't agree with it.
J. Ewing
The way courts decide matters is a complicated thing. Appellate courts and in particular Supreme Courts have a bifurcated nature, part legal, part political. And "correctness" at that level is a very difficult concept. For my part, I accept as correct the final rulings of courts whether I agree with them or not. That's what adherence to the rule of law means.
--Hiram
Post a Comment