Wisconsin Union Bill - INJUNCTION!

[FArchivist]

This just in: A temporary injunction has been issued against Wisconsin union bill, as suit has been filed alleging that Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings law by hastily convening a special committee before the Senate passed the bill.

- The judge has said her ruling would not prevent the Legislature from reconvening the committee with proper notice and passing the bill again.
- Republican lawmakers have decided they won't pass the bill again, but will instead fight in court.
- You can read the complaint here.

Normally I'd sit there doing the HAW HAW HAW when the Wisconsin GOP lawmakers make catbuttface (because let's face it, catbuttface is hilarity), but I actually have no idea if the suit is any good or not. So far I've seen two legal commentators give two diametrically opposed opinions. I do think, if the suit is upheld (and that's a large if I'm seeing right now) that the bill will not be introduced again in its current state - at least, not this session.

What do you think?

[HYHYBT]

I think they'll almost certainly win... but it would be faster and simpler for them to pass it in a technically correct manner. And I very much wonder why they won't. Or didn't the first time, for that matter.

[Hyena Dandy]

Wouldn't it be less expensive, and faster, to just pass it again?

[Boozy]

Are there concerns that they won't be able to pass it again?

[Hyena Dandy]

There don't seem to be.

[BlaqueKatt]

Are there concerns that they won't be able to pass it again?

I believe they are more concerned with the death threats(one went into explicit detail, of how they were going to kill not only the senators, but their families as well, and the multitude of ways they had already planned), and safety of the elected officials.


Plus I don't think they want the protests to continue, when the bill was first brought up they were "in session" listening to people say the same things until around 2 or 3 in the morning(then the dems left town, for three weeks), and some of the people they listened to, were not even residents of WI-so they had no business with interfering with WI lawmakers. I've spoken to quite a few of the protesters living less than three blocks away, of the ones I talked to (around 50 or so) none of them could be arsed to vote since the last presidential election, so they chose to not be represented. You want your voice heard, vote for who you want to represent you, don't try for a "do over" once you realize things are not going how you want them to.

The night they actually voted the "peaceful" protesters made enough noise that I didn't get to sleep until almost 2am, most nights it's around midnight before they quiet down. Quite frankly those of us that do live down here, support for the protests is wearing very thin the more sleep deprived they make us, it's becoming very unsafe.

[FArchivist]

Are there concerns that they won't be able to pass it again?

WisGOP officially says no, that they did everything legit according to procedure, and they'll prove it in court.

Scuttlebutt from my sources in the area, pinko commies all, says that the WisGOP actually believed this union bill would be a quick ram-through and never thought it would be protested or that it would be put to the national news. Thus, it doesn't have the support from their constituency that they would prefer, and if they try to pass it again, it'll get them bounced for sure next election. So instead, they'll let it get shot down on a technicality and claim 'moral victory'.

Further scuttlebutt is that private unions who support WisGOP are muttering amongst themselves that what is being done to the teacher's union could be done to them, since the majority of the public doesn't see the difference between public and private. A union is a union is a union, and if one is bad, well...thus, WisGOP support from private unions is quietly being dropped.

As usual, the scuttlebutt is far more interesting than the official explanation.

You want your voice heard, vote for who you want to represent you, don't try for a "do over" once you realize things are not going how you want them to.

*raises a brow* Are you saying they should not have the freedom to protest because they did not vote? If so, fascinating.

The night they actually voted the "peaceful" protesters made enough noise that I didn't get to sleep until almost 2am, most nights it's around midnight before they quiet down.

Free speech can be annoying to many, yes.

I'm trying to find details of this second lawsuit against the bill, but I haven't gotten them yet. I'll update when I have it.

[BlaqueKatt]

*raises a brow* Are you saying they should not have the freedom to protest because they did not vote? If so, fascinating.

no I'm saying, the "recalls" they're trying for is an attempt at a "do over" because they couldn't be arsed to get to the polls to vote for who they wanted to represent them.

It's similar to an SC saying "I don't know if I want chocolate or vanilla ice cream" you give them the vanilla and they scream "but I didn't want vanilla, I wanted chocolate!"

Free speech can be annoying to many, yes.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, like say violation of noise ordinances(10 pm is the limit for loud noise BY LAW, funny how "peaceful protesters" have no qualms about violating laws, and causing innocent parties to suffer*), however if the police even so much as attempt to control the noise they start screaming "oppression! the facist pigs have sicked their dogs on us to silence us!" and yes I have heard this(the news media lap it up), it's disgusting and a close kin to the dreaded "race card".

*three weeks plus of sleep deprivation, it's exhausting, and I DIDN'T DO A DAMN THING TO THESE PEOPLE. Yet they come to where I live, my neighborhood and proceed to harass me on my way to and from work because I'm actually going to work and not protesting, then prevent me from being able to sleep. Sorry charlie, show some damn respect for those that live here, how would you(general you) like me showing up and sitting outside your house with a damn bullhorn at 2am? Oh you'd call the cops because I disturbed your sleep?

I am reminded of the quote "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".

[Hyena Dandy]

Recall elections are perfectly fine. They're on the books for a reason. If people don't like the selection they made, they can take it back. It keeps politicians honest. If they campaign as one guy, and turn out completely the opposite, people get to recall them, and put someone else in.

[BlaqueKatt]

It keeps politicians honest. If they campaign as one guy, and turn out completely the opposite, people get to recall them, and put someone else in.

thing is the ones they want to recall they are doing so STRICTLY due to political affiliation, because they HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING YET! And per WI law you cannot recall someone until they have served at least one year in office, which is done so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. So in this case it IS a blatant attempt at a "do-over", they are going so far as to attempt to challenge the election laws.

[linguist]

So in this case it IS a blatant attempt at a "do-over", they are going so far as to attempt to challenge the election laws.

and why shouldn't they? Changing the rules to suit their own ends certainly worked for the Republicans.

[Greenday]

and why shouldn't they? Changing the rules to suit their own ends certainly worked for the Republicans.

Which rules did the Republicans change to pass this law?

[crashhelmet]

Which rules did the Republicans change to pass this law?

The House Republicans held a vote prior to the restart of a session. The Senate Republicans held a vote without the Democrats present. They had no quorum. They could not hold a vote.

The Senate Majority Leader, Republican Scott Fitzgerald, said that even if the Democrats were there to vote, their votes would not be counted.

[BlaqueKatt]

The House Republicans held a vote prior to the restart of a session. The Senate Republicans held a vote without the Democrats present. They had no quorum. They could not hold a vote.

a Quorum is ONLY necessary for a fiscal bill in WI, it was a separate bill at that point so no quorum was required, plus they failed to be there because they left to prevent a quorum for the budget bill.

while a quorum might be necessary in your state for every bill, it is not in ours, only bills that are about money, the collective bargaining was removed from the budget bill to pass on it's own.


Also the votes are not being counted because the democratic senators are currently in contempt for fleeing the state, and are being investigated by a disciplinary committee(two of them are facing additional charges, due to assault and death threats against fellow senators while IN SESSION, and one for a prostitution bust), when someone is found in contempt of court do they get to continue what they were doing, or are they sanctioned?

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm having trouble sympathizing with anyone here.

I don't think the Democratic Senators should have left the state. Its a dirty cheating move. But let's not get lost in rhetoric. We all know why they left the state. They didn't abandon their duties, far from it. They felt their constituents would be best served by the Senate not being able to form a quorum. I don't like, it but its a political move. Everyone UNDERSTANDS its a political move. Its like a filibuster. I think its terrible, and shouldn't be done, but everyone understands what it is when it is done. Let's drop the rhetoric about abandoning their posts. We all know what they did, and we all know why they did it.

Also, this is in no way similar to people held in contempt of court. People are held in contempt of court for yelling, threatening defendants/complainants/etc. Of course, death threats should be held in contempt (if in fact it really seems like they're threatening someone). That's not appropriate at all. You should be held in contempt of Senate for assaulting or threatening to kill another Senator. Of course, I don't know if the charges are justified. I haven't seen them, and I'd like to see what they actually said, because its just as possible (and from what I've seen, from both sides, even probable) that those charges are, well, trumped up based on the sort of rhetoric regularly used in the political system. I mean, have you ever SEEN a meeting of the House of Representatives? I hate to sound cynical, but an hour watching C-Span taught me more about government than a four month class on it.

Its nice to get lost in these things, to pretend like our side is perfectly good and just and the other side are all lousy evil cheaters out for themselves. But that's rarely the case. There are no good guys and no bad guys here. This is not a good/bad situation. Despite how the left has tried to spin it, this is also not a pro/anti teacher situation. This is a pro/anti-union situation.

The best example of this moralistic posturing is on Fox News, they're talking about how teachers are making too much money. Most teachers are just getting by. Teaching does not pay well. But we WANT it to pay well, because then teachers going on strike would be unreasonable. They would be bad guys. But they're not bad guys. They're just guys.

Personally, I am pro-union. I think their should be few, if any, restrictions on what a group of people can get together and decide to do. And if they want to get together and decide that none of them will show up for work unless they get such-and-such a thing, I think they can do that. They shouldn't get payed for it, but they should be able to do it. If they want to strike in favor of wanting to be given pink shirts, that's their choice. It should also be the choice of the managers if they want to have you fired rather than give you pink shirts. And if you both come to an agreement on what conditions are made, you should both honor that. However, I do not think you should be automatically made a member of a union just by signing up for your jobs. Unionization should be optional.

But I'm having trouble getting behind either side in this parade of shenanigans. Were I in Wisconsin, I would be in favor of a recall election. Throw both sides out and try again

SUMMARY: READ THIS BEFORE REPLYING

1) Nothing in this situation is about right or wrong.

2) We should stop pretending things are what they are not

3) I am generally pro union.

4) This is all bullshit. Bullshit on the right and bullshit on the left. Both of them stink.

5) Recalls would be good, because maybe we could clear out SOME of the bullshit.

GOOD JOB READING. YOU GET A LOLLIPOP