Sen. Fitzgerald: Email re: Senate Democrat voting privileges in standing committees

[GrantDem]

Source: WISPolitics.com

Please note that all 14 Democrat senators are still in contempt of the Senate. Therefore, when taking roll call votes on amendments and bills during executive sessions, Senate Democrats’ votes will not be reflected...

Read more: http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=230087

[bigworld]

1. He can't do that

... can he?

[Drale]

2. Rule of law in the government of Wisconsin is dead

and won't return until these freaks are gone.

[midnight]

3. Someone with more information about these corrupt Republicans please

tell me that their law breaking trumps this nonsense...

[Faygo Kid]

4. Wow! K&R. The people of Wisconsin are in deep trouble; continue to rise up!

Poor Michigan is going to get it unvarnished; now Wisconsin is seeing the truth of this whole thing.

The Kochs are disenfranchising the people of entire states through their orcs.

[Angry Dragon]

5. Under what laws or rules are they in contempt??

Do they list that anywhere??

[eowyn_of_rohan]

17. It seems Fitz-boy should be held in contempt by Wisc. Laws--see here:

According to Wisconsin law, it seems FITZGERALD could be held in contempt.
2010 Wisconsin Code
Chapter 13. Legislative branch. 13.26 Contempt.

13.26(1)---(1) Each house may punish as a contempt, by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its members; but only for one or more of the following offenses:

13.26(1)(a)---(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member's privilege from arrest.

This next one is the one they are apparently using against the Dems---
13.26(1)(b)--- (b) Disorderly conduct in the immediate view of either house or of any committee thereof and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.

13.26(1)(c)---(c) Refusing to attend or be examined as a witness, either before the house or a committee, or before any person authorized to take testimony in legislative proceedings, or to produce any books, records, documents, papers or keys according to the exigency of any subpoena.

Isn't Fitzgerald violating this one?

13.26(1)(d)---(d) Giving or offering a bribe to a member, or attempting by menace or other corrupt means or device to control or influence a member's vote or to prevent the member from voting.

13.26(2)---(2) The term of imprisonment a house may impose under this section shall not extend beyond the same session of the legislature.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/13/13.26.htm ...

-----------------
Also, Get This:
"(Fitzgerald is) letting them vote. He's just refusing to count their votes" (How sleazy can you get...)
"Strictly speaking, Scott Fitzgerald isn't preventing the 14 Democrats from voting; he's letting them vote. He's just refusing to count their votes, an "act of others" which is little different from preventing their votes, if "voting" is to have any meaning at all in § 13.26."

http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-wisconsin ...

[Blacksheep214]

6. This jerk off is pushing

for open, armed revolt!

Does he really want to push a hunting state over the edge?

Yo, Tea Partiers? DEFINE TYRANNY!


(Copied from the states threads)

[Scuba]

7. My god, we put 650,000 hunters in the woods...

...every November. They seem to be pushing us over the edge.

Oh yeah, welcome to DU.

[aquart]

12. Thank you for your concern.

We do leave armed revolt and terrorist attacks to the other side, however.

Is it agents provocateurs or agent provocateurs or agents provocateur? My French is rusty.

[plumbob]

8. How are any of these senators in contempt? Is there anything like

due process in this egomaniac's, uh, for lack of a better word, brain?

I finally am starting to understand what my old granddad meant when I was just a kid, and he would hear about really bad behavior and say, "Someone's earnin' a good beatin'"

[Zambero]

9. For the WI minority party, representative voting is now a "privilege"?

Fitzgerald and the majority Republicans are completely devoid of sanity. The voters who put these 14 Senators in office are not afforded the mere "privilge" of representation. They are indeed afforded the RIGHT of representation!

Tea Partiers -- isn't your historic rallying cry "no taxation without representation"? Will you be speaking up for the rights of these disenfranchised voters any time soon???

[highplainsdem]

10. According to Wisconsin law, the 14 Democratic senators CANNOT be held in contempt. Links:

http://www.forwardlookout.com/2011/03/can-they-really-hold-senators-in-contempt/9616

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/13/13.26.html

[Samantha]

11. I hope you make this post a separate thread

and ask people to keep posting, kicking and recommending it so it gets high visibility on DU. Just a thought. I know many people from Wisconsin check in for news about the events there, and they would probably like this info.

Sam

[aquart]

13. OP it, indeed.

[Igel]

15. Really?

Your links refer to treating a breach of the privileges of the House or any of its members. Only specific breaches can be considered contempts. That portion of the Wisconsin constitution delimits what breaches can be judged contempts. It doesn't say that no other act other than these breaches can be judged contempts; i.e., the list isn't exhaustive for all contempts, just for contempts involving a breach of privilege.

The acts that they're basing their "punishment" on isn't a contempt of any of the privileges of the house or its members. The cited portions of the law are irrelevant.

Most other portions that have been cited refer to protection of the legislative branch from the judciary or the executive. In other words, they're to maintain the integrity and independence of the legislative.

The house can enforce attendance. It can come up with its own penalties.

Doesn't mean I like it; I think the punishment's a bit harsh, to be honest, even though it's just the loss of vote in standing committees. There's no loss of vote in the assembly as a whole. But I can understand the reasoning and think that every counterargument I've heard is simply wrong-headed. I also tend to think that the courts will avoid dealing with this entirely, because to do anything would mean that the courts get to decide what amounts to a legislative-internal matter: The constitution grants the legislative branch broad discretion over managing its own business and stipulates unnamed penalties for infractions. The argument's not going to rest just on the constitutional text, but on a lot of case law going back 100 years, case law that's probably sparse (to say the least) and not unambiguous.

[Beartracks]

14. Aww. Little Fitz must be proud of himself. k&r

[lutefisk]

16. Their votes will now count- "Penalties Against Democratic State Senators Undone"

"Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said Tuesday that assurances that he received from Democrats that they will participate in future Senate sessions and votes allowed him to rescind finding the Democrats in contempt.

Fitzgerald on Monday said that Democrats would still not be allowed to have their committee votes counted since contempt votes in the Senate had not been rescinded.

But he said Tuesday their votes will be counted, no fines will be imposed and other smaller steps taken to incite them to return will also be dropped."

http://www.channel3000.com/politics/27204214/detail.html