The verdict is in... Wisc. GOP violated the law

[lawgator1]

Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law - OrlandoSentinel.com

The union bill is struck down because the alleged party of transparency used trickery and gimmickry -- illegal at that -- to pass it.

 

[MG1968]

and the democrats who left the state were...

 

[volinbham]

Wish that judge would look at how Obamacare was passed...

I guess the solution if you in the minority is to flee the jurisdiction. Hooray for representative government

 

[lawgator1]

and the democrats who left the state were...

Wish that judge would look at how Obamacare was passed...

I guess the solution if you in the minority is to flee the jurisdiction. Hooray for representative government

Even assuming you are right, the solution is a lawsuit or charges against them. Violating public notice or records laws is not the solution.

 

[volinbham]

Even assuming you are right, the solution is a lawsuit or charges against them. Violating public notice or records laws is not the solution.

Did not suggest otherwise - i was commenting on your apparent giddiness that one abuse was stopped and lack of concern through out this forum at the other abuses mentioned above.

 

[Tenacious D]

Even assuming you are right, the solution is a lawsuit or charges against them. Violating public notice or records laws is not the solution.

What about absconding and gross dereliction of duty? I guess that's more preferred, or somehow acceor is it like every other opinion you have, only acceptable when Democrats do it?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utvolpj]

no verdict is in you giddy little schoolgirl

 

[MikeHamiltonFan]

hahahh, It will be hilarious to bump this thread after the Supreme Court b slaps this poorly written opinion.

 

[therealUT]

Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law - OrlandoSentinel.com

The union bill is struck down because the alleged party of transparency used trickery and gimmickry -- illegal at that -- to pass it.

If the Parliamentary Rules in Wisconsin are anything like they are in D.C., then no violation occurred. I imagine this decision will be reviewed by an appellate court and could ultimately be argued in the SCOTUS.

I highly doubt that the legislators would have taken this route if it was so clearly against the Parliamentary Rules.

 

[Tenacious D]

Even assuming you are right, the solution is a lawsuit or charges against them. Violating public notice or records laws is not the solution.

What about absconding and gross dereliction of duty? I guess that's more preferred, or somehow acceptable? Wait, is this like every other opinion you have, that something can only be acceptable when Democrats do it?

I hope that you know that the net result of this decision will simply delay the inevitable. The unions got a "do-over", but the end result will be the same - but only after they waste several more millions of dollars in a failed effort to defeat its reintroduction.

Unions are dead. This only delays it. Your party had better hope that hippies, anarchists, gays and derelicts start inheriting some money from the deaths of wealthy Republican relatives, because you're going to have some serious campaign finance shortfalls in the coming years, and which union dues used to fill.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

oh noes!!!!!

 

[utvolpj]

did she check to see if there was another rule on the books?

Wis. Stat. 19.87 Legislative meetings, Subchapter V: Open Meetings of Governmental Bodies

(2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply
to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.

 

[sjt18]

How about attempting to intimidate elected officials and vandalizing public property en masse LG??

 

[sjt18]

If the Parliamentary Rules in Wisconsin are anything like they are in D.C., then no violation occurred. I imagine this decision will be reviewed by an appellate court and could ultimately be argued in the SCOTUS.

I highly doubt that the legislators would have taken this route if it was so clearly against the Parliamentary Rules.

SCOTUS should not accept this case. It isn't their jurisdiction.

 

[volinbham]

How about attempting to intimidate elected officials and vandalizing public property en masse LG??

It works like this - if Rs shout it is uncivil discourse and dangerous.

If D's intimidate and destroy property they are simply expressing their frustrations since they have been denied voice. They have been victims of injustice and their actions are not only appropriate but patriot.

Any questions?