No class in WI as teachers protest union-busting governor

[Plow]

It's moderate in Madison and Milwaukee - in the rest of the state it's pretty cheap. But then again I lived for 3 years off roughly 28k a year in Los Angeles, so "destitute" off 35k in SF is a bit of an exaggeration.

But still, 62k for a PhD professor is very low considering what most of those people could make in the public sector, especially for the non-liberal arts profs.

well normally I'd be on your side, but for today, THATS OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WISCONSIN IS SUCH A SHITTY SCHOOL

[archibaldcrane]

Feels good man.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk

[Yuri-G]

just when you thought it couldn't get worse,

(tldr the legislature is ignoring the judicial system thus turning a system of checks and balances into "rape and plunder if you have the power")

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...118677754.html

Collective bargaining law published despite restraining order

Fitzgerald, Barca disagree on whether law goes into effect Saturday


Special Section: Ongoing coverage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial budget-repair bill and the battle over the 2011-'13 state budget





Madison — In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.
The measure was published to the Legislature's website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."
The measure sparked protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.
The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.
Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But nonpartisan legislative officials from two agencies, including the one who published the bill, disagreed.
"I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state," said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. "I don't think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective."
Walker signed the bill March 11. Under state law, it must be published within 10 working days, which was Friday.
It hasn't been printed in the Wisconsin State Journal, the official state newspaper, as other laws are. Late Friday, State Journal publisher Bill Johnston said in an e-mail that the notice for the law had been scheduled to run but had been canceled. He did not elaborate.
La Follette urged caution Friday, saying the measure has not been published yet by his office. He said he believes the law cannot go into effect until he directs the State Journal to publish it, which he has not done.
Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said it didn't matter that it hasn't appeared in the paper.
"It's published," Fitzgerald said. "It's law. That's what I contend."
Fitzgerald and Miller met Friday. Miller said Fitzgerald asked him to publish the law and, after reading the statutes, Miller agreed that he could do so. He said he had never published a law without being given a date by the secretary of state during his 12 years of running the reference bureau.
After the restraining order was issued March 18, La Follette sent a letter that same day to the reference bureau rescinding earlier instructions to publish the bill Friday. "I further instruct you to remove all reference to March 25, 2011, as the publication date and not to proceed with publication until I contact you with a new publication date," his letter said.
Walker's top cabinet official, Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch, gave only a brief statement reacting to Friday's news.
"Today the administration was notified that the LRB published the budget-repair bill as required by law," he said. "The administration will carry out the law as required."
Effect questioned

In a memo to Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), an attorney for the nonpartisan Legislative Council said that the legislation would not become law based on Friday's action. That's because although state law provides for a separate role for both the reference bureau and the secretary of state in publishing laws, the section in state law on when legislation takes effect refers only to action by the secretary of state, the memo said.
Barca pointed to the memo in sharply criticizing Republican statements.
"This bill has been under a cloud of suspicion since day one," Barca said. "Today's actions and statements are only perpetuating the problem."
Last week, Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint to block the law, saying a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when they approved it. Republicans say they didn't violate the meetings law.
In her March 18 decision, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued the restraining order to prevent La Follette from publishing the law. But she also made a blanket statement that she was blocking the further implementation of the law.
"I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the secretary of state. He is restrained and enjoined from such publication until further order of this court," she said.
The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order, and on Thursday an appeals panel - without weighing in on the merits of the case - said the state Supreme Court should take up the matter. The high court has not decided what to do.
Bill Cosh, a spokesman for Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, said in a statement that no action of the secretary of state is needed for the reference bureau to publish the measure. Cosh noted that La Follette is not in violation of the restraining order because he did not direct the reference bureau to publish the bill.
"The Wisconsin Department of Justice will evaluate how the lawful publication of Act 10 affects pending litigation. We have no further comment at this time," Cosh said.
Late Friday, Ozanne sought a new temporary restraining order in the case, but Duty Judge Sarah O'Brien declined to set a hearing, noting one was already scheduled for Tuesday.
Ozanne issued a statement saying that he had been surprised by the publication and by the fact that it was sought by a "named defendant in the lawsuit," a reference to Fitzgerald.
Ozanne said the action by the reference bureau had no significance and "should be resolved in a court of law."
Howard Schweber, a professor of political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said Friday's actions amounted to "entirely uncharted waters."
He said that the action Friday didn't remove the possibility that the Supreme Court could take up the question of the restraining order against La Follette. He questioned how the justices would react to a publication step being taken before they had made any decision.
"No matter what happens next, it's going to be one heck of a show," he said.
New suit filed

Also Friday, another suit was filed over the law, bringing to three the total number of cases now pending.
Madison firefighters and public works employees filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court against Walker and the state seeking to block the law from taking effect, saying it had been passed in violation of the state constitution.
The Madison workers allege that the law treats some union workers unfairly compared with other workers. The law also violates constitutional provisions requiring that three-fifths of lawmakers be present to vote on certain financial bills, the lawsuit alleged.
The named plaintiff in the lawsuit is Jamie O'Brien, a public works employee who lives in Madison.
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the lawsuit. It followed actions by Ozanne, acting Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and other county officials.
The budget-repair measure was meant to shore up the state's finances through June 30 but drew massive protests because of the collective bargaining changes. It stalled when Senate Democrats left the state Feb. 17 to block action on the measure. The state constitution requires 20 of 33 senators - three-fifths of the body - to be present to vote on bills with certain fiscal elements, and Republicans hold just 19 seats.
After three weeks, Republicans quickly convened a conference committee March 9 to strip appropriations out of the bill. They said the changes meant they no longer needed 20 senators to be present.
Other provisions with financial effects for the state, such as requirements that state employees pay more for their health and pension benefits, remained in the bill. Those provisions should have also required a vote by 20 senators, the lawsuit filed Friday argues. Republicans have also disputed that claim.

-

it's amazing how these guys keep finding new ways to surprise me. brb gonna go steal from a bank and when the judge tries to incarcerate me, I'll just walk away because I don't feel like listening.

how many steps away from being a dictatorship is Wisconsin, now?

[shiarua]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

The judiciary does not have the power to block something from becoming law. Sorry, the judge in this case was wrong in ordering a restraining order and overstepped her bounds.

[Ferion]

Where exactly does it say that in the Wikipedia article you posted?

[Talint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

The judiciary does not have the power to block something from becoming law. Sorry, the judge in this case was wrong in ordering a restraining order and overstepped her bounds.

In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.

I suggest finding a better place for your talking points.

[archibaldcrane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary

The judiciary does not have the power to block something from becoming law. Sorry, the judge in this case was wrong in ordering a restraining order and overstepped her bounds.

The law in question was never legally voted on. It needs to be voted on to become law.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[shiarua]

I suggest finding a better place for your talking points.

Except the bill hadn't become law yet. It needed to be published to go into effect....

The law in question was never legally voted on. It needs to be voted on to become law.

That's still to be decided. I'm just going to smirk when they ultimately determine that the open meetings law was not violated.

[Talint]

Except the bill hadn't become law yet. It needed to be published to go into effect....

Ooooh. Semantics. Gotcha.

[Ferion]

I would still like to see some kind of proof that the judiciary does not have the power to block something from becoming a law. I'm not saying it's wrong, but so far the only thing that's been posted as evidence was a Wikipedia page that didn't even mention it.

[Melchiah]

There isn't, because one of, if not the primary function of the higher courts is judicial review.

[archibaldcrane]

That's still to be decided. I'm just going to smirk when they ultimately determine that the open meetings law was not violated.

Do you think it was violated?


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The lawsuit was against the Sec. of State not the Legislative Reference Bereau. It is required to publish laws w/in 10 days. In other words, they didn't defy the judiciary.

Also, why hasn't a single liberal bitched about private workers losing the right to strike? That's certainly closer to an actual right than collective bargaining in the public sector. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ame...k=MW_news_stmp

[Olo401]

Uhhh that's always been part of the bitchfest Swampy.

[Demosthenes11]

GOP: the law is morality. because a different bureau was named, it's just to push the bill ahead!

[Olo401]

To be honest, at this point the anti-worker bill will remain law at least until next year. The WI Supreme Court may not rule on this until their next session (which doesn't open until July) - The election on April 5 will give Dems the balance of power on the court (thanks to Walker), so it could be struck down on technicality. But then the Fitzgerald bros. can just push the bill through again the same way they did before without breaking the open meetings law. A legal challenge from the unions will follow, but it might not get to the SC until September-October or maybe later. And there's no guarantee it will be struck down either.

So right now the prudent thing to do would be to keep plugging away on the Senate recall effort, put things in place to recall Walker in January, and prepare for the 2012 elections which will swing the state assembly back.

[Yuri-G]

back and forth we go

http://www.startribune.com/local/118...Dua_eyD5PcOiUr

Wisconsin judge halts further implementation of law taking away collective bargaining rights

story's a bit long to post here but basically the judge said "lolno" and the law is back off the books... for now.

[Salodin]

If they continue to try and push things through illegally, would the federal government get involved in any way?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If they continue to try and push things through illegally, would the federal government get involved in any way?

Aside from passing universal laws I don't see how it could. Maybe an appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS or something.

[aurik]

In theory, if they try to enforce laws that have been enjoined by the state court the federal judicial system will get involved (after all, it becomes a violation of due process). But they wouldn't be so stupid to try to enforce a blocked law. If they really want to see the law on the books they have the opportunity to pass it again with proper procedure. Otherwise it'll be litigated in the courts, and they'll probably lose their supermajority before the litigation concludes.