T1B

Judge Strikes Down Collective Bargaining Law
Judge Rules Open Meetings Law Was Violated
Updated: 10:57 am CDT May 26, 2011

MADISON, Wis. -- A Dane County judge has struck down a law taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most state workers.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled on Thursday that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin's open meetings law during the run up passing the controversial measure. She said that renders the law void.

In her ruling, Sumi said that there was "no conflicting Senate, Assembly or joint rule in effect on March 9, 2011, that would have excused compliance with the public notice requirement" of 24 hours notice. She went on to say, "The evidence also demonstrated a failure to obey even the two-hour notice allowed for good cause if 24-hour notice is impossible or impractical."

The law, pushed by Gov. Scott Walker and the root cause of weeks of protest at the state Capitol, takes away all bargaining rights from workers except over base salary for teachers and other public employees.

The bill was stalled in the state Senate after Democrats fled the state to avoid a quorum in the chamber, which is necessary to pass any fiscal items. On March 9, however, Republicans split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights, which spends no money, and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved the bill a short time later.

The lone Democrat present on the conference committee, state Rep. Tony Barca, shouted that the surprise meeting was a violation of the state's open meetings law but Republicans voted over his objections. The Senate then convened within minutes and hastily passed the bill 18-1 without discussion or debate. Republicans then left the building under heavy police presence as protesters began to flood the Capitol.

The decision sparked differing reactions along party lines. Republican leaders decried the ruling.

"There’s still a much larger separation-of-powers issue: whether one Madison judge can stand in the way of the other two democratically-elected branches of government," said state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald in a statement. "The (state) Supreme Court is going to have the ultimate ruling."

Some Democrats hailed the judge's ruling.

"Today’s decision by Judge Sumi restores Wisconsin’s long tradition of open government," said Barca, in a statement. "This ruling sets an important precedent that when the Legislature meets, the people must have a seat at the table. This is a huge victory for Wisconsin democracy."

Sumi acknowledged the controversy involved in the battle over the bill, but said that wasn't her concern.

"It is not this court's business to determine whether 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 is good public policy or bad public policy; that is the business of the legislature. It is this court's responsibility, however, to apply the rule of law to the facts before it," she wrote.

The decision isn't the end of the legal fight. The state Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for June 6 to determine whether it will take the same case.

Lawmakers could also pass the law again in order to nullify open meeting concerns that led to the judge's ruling Thursday.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party released a statement in response to the ruling. "Today, Wisconsin was given further proof, from a judge appointed by Tommy Thompson, that Scott Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers treated the rule of law with contempt in their illegal and divisive overreach. The decision should be looked at as an opportunity to work together to find commonsense solutions to grow our economy and get our fiscal house in order -- not to tear our state apart, as Walker and his lockstep Legislature have chosen to do," the statement read.

Early response from Republican leadership mirrors the words spoken when the budget repair bill first was passed.

"This overdue reform is still a critical part of balancing Wisconsin’s budget," Fitzgerald said in a statement. "Republicans are keeping the promises we made to balance the budget, hold the line on government spending, create jobs and improve the state’s economy."

Imus wrote:Uh, could we please get the simple two line Alabamized version of that?

Goober McTuber wrote:

Imus wrote:Uh, could we please get the simple two line Alabamized version of that?

Sure. Just give me a couple of minutes and I'll post it over at .net for you and all the other wet-brained fuckwits.

Goober wrote:Oops

Goober McOnions 42 wrote:I think the ruling would stand, were it not heading for a sensibly comprised state supreme court freely elected by the citizenry of Wisconsin. Yes, I believe the ruling will get overturned, and in the long run the public unions will be totally fucked. Senate recall elections coming up in about 6 or 7 weeks, and I can't help posting delushions that the rest of the state's electorate thinks the same way as the liberal whack-jobs and gravy-trainers that populate Dade County and the City of Madison.

Cuda wrote:"we"?

you moved to wisconsin, when, gobbles?

Goober McTuber wrote:
Keep watching, Truman. You really have no fucking clue as to what is going on here.

Truman wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:
Keep watching, Truman. You really have no fucking clue as to what is going on here.

Correction, Slicknuts: I really don't fucking care what is going on up there. That a dissenting opinion sticks in your craw and leaves you back-peddaling is half the fun.

Martyred wrote:I guess if you're poor, you are either not trying hard enough or God is just not shedding his grace on thee.

What a wonderful, Frank Capra storybook you must live in, Trutard.

Truman wrote:Where is it written – anywhere - that it is the function of the Federal government to take care of your stupid, junky, bitter ass?

Truman wrote: You want guaranteed healthcare? A cush job with collective bargaining privileges? Place to live? Free college education? All provided to you courtesy of the Federal government?

Truman wrote:The Constitution provides you with the freedom to sink-or-swim all on your lonesome. If you are too fucking retarded to take advantage of such freedom, then you have my sympathy. As well as my scorn.

Americans thrive on their God-given rights. Losers complain about “fairness” on message boards. Kill yourself.

Papa Willie wrote:I thought this thread was about Goobs losing a grip on his walker while he was reaching for a Depends. :D

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:I thought this thread was about Goobs losing a grip on his walker while he was reaching for a Depends. :D

You've really turned into quite the one-trick pony. How'd you manage that?

Papa Homo wrote:I've got you & Screwy coming together now.

mvscal wrote:A very shaky ruling on an arguable procedural issue from a thoroughly compromised judge. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Gobbles.

Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law

Madison - Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the reinstatement of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial plan to end most collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.

The court found that a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when it hastily approved the collective bargaining measure in March and made it possible for the Senate to take it up.
.....

The court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's ruling, which had held up implementation of the collective bargaining law, was in the void ab initio, Latin for invalid from the outset.
....

The court concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... 59034.html

The ruling came on lines that have become familiar in recent years for the often divided court.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part.

Abrahamson's dissent was particularly stinging as she upbraided her fellow justices for errors
and faulty analysis.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part.

Abrahamson's dissent was particularly stinging as she upbraided her fellow justices for errors and faulty analysis.

Republicans who run the Assembly were prepared late Tuesday to insert the collective bargaining changes into the state budget if the court hadn't acted. But the court's ruling just before 5 p.m. spared them from again having to take up a contentious issue that spawned weeks of massive protests earlier this year.

....

But Abrahamson wrote that the order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has "reached a predetermined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."

The majority justices "make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891," Abrahamson wrote.

....

But Democrats decried the Supreme Court decision for finding lawmakers do not have to follow the open meetings law. They said they would move to amend the state constitution to make them subject to the meetings law, a process that would take years and be difficult to start while they remain in the minority.

"The majority of the Supreme Court is essentially saying that the Legislature is above the law. It's now clear that unless the constitution is amended, the Legislature is free to ignore any laws on the books," said a statement from Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha).
During the meeting at the heart of the case, Barca had screamed at Republicans to halt the meeting because he said they were violating the open meetings law. They ignored him as cameras recorded the dramatic confrontation.

....

The state constitution requires the doors of the Legislature to remain open when it is in session, and that portion of the constitution is referenced in the state's open meetings law.
The court majority found lawmakers must obey the state constitution, but not the open meetings law, which spells out when meeting notices must be published and when public entities can meet in closed session.

Sumi initially blocked the law with a temporary restraining order, saying Ozanne was likely to succeed on his open meetings arguments. Walker's administration then filed a petition for what is known as a supervisory writ - a request that the high court take over the case.
The court held arguments June 6 on whether to take the case. Until issuing its ruling Tuesday, the court had not formally accepted the case.

Goober McTuber wrote:They definitely violated the open meeting law.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:They definitely violated the open meeting law.

Obviously they didn't. You could try reading the decision or you could continue jerking off to what some Democrat moron has to say about it.

MADISON, Wis. -- A coalition of Wisconsin worker rights groups is going to court to block Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill.

The groups are filing a federal lawsuit against the governor's plan to strip most public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights.

The groups are challenging the bill's constitutionality. The lawsuit contends the bill violates the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by stripping away workers' rights to organize and bargain.

Organizations filing the challenge include councils of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Wisconsin State Employees Union and the Service Employees International Union-Health Care Wisconsin.

"In the near future, we will seek a preliminary injunction that would stop the law from going into effect," said Kurt Kobelt, counsel for WEAC.

"This is about members' rights. This is something where it's really true that the rich and powerful have different rights than the rest of us and all employees across the state," said Rick Badger, executive director of AFSCME 480.

Union leaders said the suit only seeks to preserve the basic right to bargain and freely associate.

Goober McTuber wrote:All three branches of Wisconsin government are an embarrassment.

War Wagon wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:All three branches of Wisconsin government are an embarrassment.

Which mirrors the constituency.

Goober McTuber wrote:As I called it. .

Cuda wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:As I called it. .

As you called it?

Goober McTuber wrote:I think the ruling would stand, were it not heading for a horribly compromised state supreme court. Yes, I believe the ruling will get overturned, but in the long run we’ll come out OK. Senate recall elections coming up in about 6 or 7 weeks.

'Emily Mills wrote:Something's rotten in the Badger State.

I've had a day now to more thoroughly digest the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court voiding Judge Sumi's ruling that the collective bargaining bill be permanently enjoined because its passage had violated the state's Open Meeting Laws.

Since my initial shock wore off a lot of questions have moved into its place: Why did the court issue its opinion so quickly, just eight days after hearing oral arguments? Does this essentially call the Open Meetings Law unconstitutional, giving our legislators unfettered power to hold meetings and push through bills without public knowledge or input? Did the Republicans know the court was going to rule when and how it did, given the number of postponed meetings and sessions that day?

I'm not one to yell 'activist judges' in a crowded theater, but I'm also not alone in this case in suspecting that something is definitely amiss on our high court.

Rick Ungar, writing at Forbes, has by his own admission "read more cases in my life than I could possibly count and never -- and I mean never -- has anything I've seen so much as approached what I read in this case." Ungar went on to lay out his concerns clearly:


When the Chief Justice of the highest court in the state feels moved to accuse those in the majority of recreating the facts to meet a desired decision, this is a court that is in extraordinary crisis.

And if Chief Justice Abrahamson is correct in her assessment, Wisconsin now finds itself in a period where their highest court decisions can no longer be relied upon when assessing the law.

Indeed, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's dissent is positively excoriating in the context of Supreme Court opinions. She's essentially accusing the majority not of mistaken application of the law, but rather, as Ungar explains, a "perversion of the facts."

That's a huge problem. We are, after all, talking about the highest court in the state -- the one that makes decisions on which all lower court cases strive to base their decisions. If the highest court has been tainted by partisanship or even just the level of discord necessary to prompt a sitting Chief Justice to write such accusations, then I'm not sure how we can trust any of their decisions until there's an entirely new set of justices.

Even former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, now a distinguished professor of law at Marquette University's Law School, says she was "disconcerted" by the quick ruling: (h/t Cognitive Dissidence)


"They had five hours of oral argument and issued a complicated decision within a week," Geske said in a telephone interview. "They didn't use their usual process."

..."You want to establish the law for the future," Geske said. "Cases always are urgent. But the court always takes its time."

Instead, the court acted on the day the Legislature was prepared to vote again on the collective-bargaining law. The court issued its decision late Tuesday afternoon.

Indeed, the timing of ruling's release was highly suspicious. I'd been at the Capitol all day, waiting and waiting some more as first the Assembly postponed its session from 11 a.m. to "4 or 5 p.m." after it was decided that a meeting of the Joint Committee on Retirement Systems was necessary at 4 p.m. in order to vote on the collective bargaining provisions to be inserted into the budget (so as to circumvent the court entirely).

Then the committee meeting was postponed, too, first from 4 to 5, then to 6 p.m. -- at which point I walked out of the room to get some fresh air, only to be greeted by the news that the Supreme Court's ruling was imminent. Convenient, no? Seems very much like certain people got word a little earlier than others that the decision was coming, and knew to keep postponing related meetings until it was issued.

The ironic thing is, though, that Gov. Walker and Republican legislators may not have been entirely pleased with the timing. They'd been preparing to pass collective bargaining with some additional tweaks so as to make it more, you know, constitutionally sound than the original bill. They may still do that, though certainly they must be pleased that the bulk of the controversial provisions will no longer need to be debated along with the rest of the budget, a process that would have undoubtedly taken quite a long while and given those unwashed hippies in the rotunda an excuse to keep singing and banging those infernal drums.

So even if the right hand isn't communicating entirely effectively with the other right hand, one can't help but wonder why they seem to be talking at all.

Money may have something to do with it.

Let's run down the facts of who is taking dollars from whom, shall we? Justice David Prosser, in addition to claiming in his campaign that he would be a "common sense compliment to both the new administration and legislature," has been the beneficiary of some Koch-fueled cash. A group calling itself "Citizens for a Strong America" ran ads in support of Prosser and attacking challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg -- but, according to SourceWatch, CSA doesn't actually have any employees or offices. It is, however, registered to the same street address and building in Milwaukee as the David Koch-led group "Americans for Prosperity."

Prosser's former chief of staff from when he was the Republican Assembly speaker, Brian Schimming, used to be a registered lobbyist for Georgia Pacific, a Koch-owned company. A former administrative aid of Prosser's, Ray Carey, is currently a lobbyist for Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC.

Meanwhile, Justice Michael Gableman took took $6,859.52 from KochPAC in March 2008, and Justice Annette Ziegler took $8,625 from them in March 2007. Ziegler also benefitted from a whopping $2.2 million ad, telephone and direct mail campaign by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce when she ran in 2007, and another $400,000 from Club for Growth Wisconsin. WMC threw its weight behind Gableman as well, to the tune of $2 million.

Gableman, of course, was found by a "three-appellate-judge panel…in 2009 to have violated two separate provisions of the Wisconsin code of judicial ethics" as a result of his campaign's ads that outright lied about incumbent Justice Louis Butler's record. The Supreme Court later deadlocked on the case. Unsurprisingly, it was Justices Prosser, Ziegler, and Roggensack (who joined Gableman in striking down Judge Sumi's decision) who didn't feel as though their colleague's ethics violation were serious enough to warrant actual disciplinary action.

That decision was one of the earliest signs that the new make-up of the court was leading to serious fissures, not to mention a more right-wing slant.

We're seeing the fruits of those monetary efforts now, in deeply suspicious rulings like the one handed down on Tuesday. Like Ungar suggested, then, it won't be until there are entirely different Justices sitting on the bench before Wisconsin can trust its highest court again.

In the meantime, it might be best to invest in air fresheners.

Yesterday (6/14/2011), the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, overturned the lower court decision that had barred implementation of Scott Walker’s anti-collective bargaining law on procedural grounds.

While Walker’s law will now take effect, this is the least of the problems revealed by the high court’s ruling.

After all, the anti-collective bargaining legislation was going to become law, one way or another. Had the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ban and struck down the law, Walker would have simply included the legislation in his new budget and pushed it through once again. Only this time, there would not have been the procedural snafu that has left the legislation hanging in limbo as it worked its way through the state court system.

However, the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court revealed something far more shocking than the ruling which went against the supporters of collective bargaining. It revealed, by way of written opinion, a now ‘out in the open’ battle between the members of the court wherein the minority opinion bluntly and directly accused the majority of fudging the facts to reach the decision they had already determined they wanted to reach. The minority opinion further alleged that the majority was driven by political motives rather than the desire to deliver a fair and judicious opinion.

In the world of the law, this is beyond huge. This is gargantuan.

Of course, it is no secret that high courts will, from time to time, give us reason to believe that politics might be at work. However, members of such a court use extraordinary care and caution to avoid calling out a fellow justice for doing what is considered the unthinkable.

The notion that a minority opinion would level a charge of judicial cheating against brother and sister members of the court, in an opinion that will now become part of the Wisconsin judicial body of legal authority, is positively remarkable. I’ve read more cases in my life than I could possibly count and never-and I mean never- has anything I’ve seen so much as approached what I read in this case.

And the fact that these charges were leveled in an opinion concurring with the minority written by the Chief Justice of the Court just makes this all the more astounding.

In a fiery dissent, Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote that justices hastily reached the decision and the majority “set forth their own version of facts without evidence. They should not engage in this disinformation.”

Abrahamson also said a concurring opinion written by Justice David Prosser, a former Republican speaker of the Assembly, was “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.”

Astounding. Truly ‘jaw dropping’, mouth gaping, astounding.

When the Chief Justice of the highest court in the state feels moved to accuse those in the majority of recreating the facts to meet a desired decision, this is a court that is in extraordinary crisis.

And if Chief Justice Abrahamson is correct in her assessment, Wisconsin now finds itself in a period where their highest court decisions can no longer be relied upon when assessing the law.

Every state in the nation – with the exception of Louisiana who retains its roots in the French Napoleonic system- bases its law in the concept of stare decisis. This means that when the court makes law through their decisions, other courts will strive to remain consistent with that law by following the judicial precedents set so that people will never find themselves confused as to the likely outcome of their actions.

This is why changes in American law – other than those brought about by legislation- happen very, very slowly. Consistency in the law is one of the fundamental goals of our system.

However, when the Chief Justice of the State’s highest court accuses the majority of highly unethical behavior and political motives when making law, and does so in the writings found in a decision of the court, there is no court in the state – nor citizen seeking to follow the laws of the state – who can give credence and credibility to the high court’s rulings. Every ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, so long as it is composed of its current Justices, will result in precedents that are instantly suspect due to the charges that have been levied by members of the court.

While the State of Wisconsin has a lot on its plate in the recall department, I’m afraid they now have little choice but to consider taking a look at some of their Supreme Court Justices for similar action.

Not because the court handed down a ruling that will make people unhappy – but because the people of Wisconsin now have every reason to believe that their Supreme Court has been corrupted and their opinions subject to invalidation.

Make no mistake. This is not about a judicial philosophy with which I might disagree. Reasonable, learned judges can – and often do – apply the law to a fact situation and come up with different opinions and they do so in the utmost of good faith and their best understanding of the law.

However, the minority opinion issued yesterday in the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not charge mistaken application of law. The opinion charged perversion of the facts and the law to meet a desired result.

If this is true, this is court corruption at its absolute worst and the people of Wisconsin cannot permit this to stand.

88 wrote:You might want to take something to rid yourself of those vaginal cramps, Goobs.

However, the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court revealed something far more shocking than the ruling which went against the supporters of collective bargaining. It revealed, by way of written opinion, a now ‘out in the open’ battle between the members of the court wherein the minority opinion bluntly and directly accused the majority of fudging the facts to reach the decision they had already determined they wanted to reach. The minority opinion further alleged that the majority was driven by political motives rather than the desire to deliver a fair and judicious opinion.

In the world of the law, this is beyond huge. This is gargantuan.

Of course, it is no secret that high courts will, from time to time, give us reason to believe that politics might be at work. However, members of such a court use extraordinary care and caution to avoid calling out a fellow justice for doing what is considered the unthinkable.

The notion that a minority opinion would level a charge of judicial cheating against brother and sister members of the court, in an opinion that will now become part of the Wisconsin judicial body of legal authority, is positively remarkable. I’ve read more cases in my life than I could possibly count and never-and I mean never- has anything I’ve seen so much as approached what I read in this case.

88 wrote:As for your contention that the purpose of the bill is to transfer wealth from the lower and middle classes to the highest levels of the upper class, I think you are smoking crack. The issue is whether public employees should be permitted to exercise collective bargaining rights. They have no right to do that unless the public grants it to them.

Toddowen wrote:I'm really feeling something of a loss that I can't send a round of drinks to 88's table after that.

The site for Gov. Scott Walker’s weekend budget signing ceremony was quickly changed Friday after staffers in his office learned the original site was owned by a convicted tax evader.

Gregory DeCaster, chief executive officer of the Green Bay area Badger Sheet Metal Works, was convicted of as many as eight felony counts of income tax evasion in the 1990s. Walker was scheduled to sign the $66 billion, two-year budget plan at the company on Sunday.

The governor’s office learned of DeCaster’s record Friday morning. A few hours later, Walker’s staff moved the 2 p.m. Sunday ceremony to Fox Valley Metal-Tech also in the Green Bay area.

“The business where we were going to originally sign the budget bill called us this morning to tell us about a decade-old tax-related issue that had not been previously disclosed to our office,” Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said in a statement. “In light of this new information, we have decided to move the budget signing to a new location to keep the focus of the budget signing on ensuring Wisconsin has an environment that allows the private sector to create 250,000 new jobs by 2015.”

Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, had no comment Friday. DeCaster did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

But Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said he was not very surprised by the news.

“Sloppiness from the start,” Barca said. “Like a lot of the legislation they’ve written. It seems they are always more concerned with speed than with getting things right.”

The change in plans echoed problems Walker ran into at the start of the budget, when the governor planned to deliver his budget address at a Madison livestock feed manufacturer. But days of protests against his collective bargaining proposals delayed the introduction of the spending plan, which was delivered a week later in the Assembly chamber.