Wisconsin Union Bill - INJUNCTION!

[crashhelmet]

GOOD JOB READING. YOU GET A LOLLIPOP

But... But... I gave up candy for Lent

[Hyena Dandy]

But... But... I gave up candy for Lent

Then you can have a biscuit instead.

[FArchivist]

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!"

I see.
So recall elections should be disallowed legally on the basis that they are SC behavior.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, like say violation of noise ordinances

Freedom of speech does not necessarily cover things like violation of noise ordinances. In fact, it could possibly be held that those noise ordinances violate constitutional freedom of speech guarantees. You would need to have that decided by a court case, though.

*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".

Then file suit against the protesters if you feel your rights are being violated.

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.

Actually, that has yet to be decided, as a SECOND lawsuit has been issued stating that the Republicans left fiscal items in the bill that was passed and so a quorum was required anyway. The second lawsuit will determine that issue.

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?.

No, sanctioning does not work that way in ANY state of the Union and do ignore someone's votes due to being in contempt or investigating would result in a FEDERAL charge of disenfranchisement of the electorate. So yes, while being investigated or even if sanctioned, which would be no more than a fine or a citation, their vote is counted.

I'm starting to become remarkably suspicious that you are entirely biased on this issue.

[Greenday]

BOOM! Pwned

[Andara Bledin]

First, it would be nice if you'd included, say, any information at all about what you were linking.

Second, I really don't count a statement by the SC that the procedure used to create the legislation was allowable to be much in the way of "pwnage."

... The court's task in the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to determining whether the Legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the act. We conclude that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used.

So, the process was given a stamp of approval; the actual statute has yet to undergo and survive an actual challenge.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

First, it would be nice if you'd included, say, any information at all about what you were linking.

Second, I really don't count a statement by the SC that the procedure used to create the legislation was allowable to be much in the way of "pwnage."



So, the process was given a stamp of approval; the actual statute has yet to undergo and survive an actual challenge.

^-.-^

It was something I discovered on my way out of work. And I would consider it pwnage seeing as that was the only thing the Democrats seemed to have going for them. The bill was about to be signed and put into law before this. Full steam ahead.

[FArchivist]

BOOM! Pwned

BOOM! ESCALATED!

[Andara Bledin]

It was something I discovered on my way out of work. And I would consider it pwnage seeing as that was the only thing the Democrats seemed to have going for them. The bill was about to be signed and put into law before this. Full steam ahead.

Not really. They went for what would have been an easy win if it had been decided in their favor. Far less effort than challenging the text itself. Since that gambit didn't work, it's on with the real challenge to see if the law itself can pass muster.

As written, I sincerely doubt it.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

BOOM! ESCALATED!

Nice. At least the law is in effect anyway. It'll be an epic court battle wasting millions of tax payers' dollars.

[mikoyan29]

Nice. At least the law is in effect anyway. It'll be an epic court battle wasting millions of tax payers' dollars.

Since when have politicians really given a rat's ass about wasting taxpayers' dollars anyway?

[FArchivist]

Nice. At least the law is in effect anyway. It'll be an epic court battle wasting millions of tax payers' dollars.

May not remain in effect for long. Usually an injunction is issued suspending the law when

And I fervently disagree with the "wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars". This is why the federal judiciary exists, to resolve these sorts of dispute. This is not a frivolous suit; it is a serious inquiry into whether the law itself violates the Constitution. If decided against the unions, it will invalidate caselaw going all the way back to when unions first formed. This case will have immense repercussions, no matter how it is decided.

[Greenday]

May not remain in effect for long. Usually an injunction is issued suspending the law when

And I fervently disagree with the "wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars". This is why the federal judiciary exists, to resolve these sorts of dispute. This is not a frivolous suit; it is a serious inquiry into whether the law itself violates the Constitution. If decided against the unions, it will invalidate caselaw going all the way back to when unions first formed. This case will have immense repercussions, no matter how it is decided.

This case is about a bunch of people trying to get extra benefits that everyone else has to pay for. Boo fucking hoo, they have to pay for stuff like us. Cry me a river. Call it what you want, but if the union is stripped, the only thing that will be changed is that union groups won't be able to hold services hostage so they can get even more ridiculous benefits no one else gets.

[Andara Bledin]

This case is about a bunch of people trying to get extra benefits that everyone else has to pay for.

You need to either read the article or ask someone to give you an excerpt if you can't get to it because it's not about the benefits.

That's right. The challenge has nothing to do with the paying more for benefits, so your whole little rant there just so much ignorant drivel.

But the legal battle was not yet over. A coalition of unions filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday arguing that the law violated the U.S. Constitution by taking away union rights to bargain, organize and associate and illegally discriminates among classes of public employees. The lawsuit seeks to block portions of the law taking away collective bargaining rights, but allows the higher pension and health care contributions that the unions agreed to take to move forward.

"Scott Walker has created two classes of public sector workers and that is unconstitutional," said Wisconsin AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt. "When a legislature discriminates among classes of workers, especially when doing so has more to do with political payback than with any legitimate reasoning, the law has been violated."

It's the right to bargain and the fact that it creates separate classes of public employees. That's what they're fighting. If everybody was given the same treatment, and the collective bargaining was allowed (which I believe is pretty much protected by the Constitution, so it was Walker wasting taxpayer money, not those fighting the law), then there would be no case. He could have just put in the extra charges for pensions, etc, which the unions have already agreed to.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

You need to either read the article or ask someone to give you an excerpt if you can't get to it because it's not about the benefits.

That's right. The challenge has nothing to do with the paying more for benefits, so your whole little rant there just so much ignorant drivel.

You can call it what you want, but no matter what they use to fight it, that is what they are fighting for in the end. They are just changing their tactics to achieve the same results.

[Andara Bledin]

You can call it what you want, but no matter what they use to fight it, that is what they are fighting for in the end. They are just changing their tactics to achieve the same results.

I can call it anything, but in this case, I'm calling it what it is. How you can say that after I went to the trouble of quoting the part of the article that points out how you're completely and utterly mistaken, I don't know.

Here it is again:

But the legal battle was not yet over. A coalition of unions filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday arguing that the law violated the U.S. Constitution by taking away union rights to bargain, organize and associate and illegally discriminates among classes of public employees. The lawsuit seeks to block portions of the law taking away collective bargaining rights, but allows the higher pension and health care contributions that the unions agreed to take to move forward.

Why don't you try actually reading it this time. I've even bolded the relevant information.

They're not challenging the higher costs. At all. They're letting those go through unimpeded.

So your assertion that they're trying to fight to keep from paying more is complete and utter hogwash unsupported by the information at hand.

^-.-^