Appeals Court: Supreme Court Should Rule On Collective Bargaining Law

[Chipster]

Source: WISN

MADISON, Wis. -- The state's controversial collective bargaining law will not be published Friday as originally expected.

Late Thursday afternoon, the state Court of Appeals sent the issue to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The attorney general wanted the Appeals Court to remove the restraining order keeping the law from being published Friday, but the state Appeals Court said the issues involved are critical and should be decided by the state Supreme Court.

The State Supreme Court doesn't have to accept the case, and it's uncertain when the justices will make a decision.

Read more: http://www.wisn.com/politics/27310709/detail.html

[plumbob]

1. Good!

Anything in the spokes of the guv's bike is welcome!

[Jim__]

2. The original judge gets to decide whether or not to issue a full injunction.

Here's hoping:

As the state waits for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the case, there's a hearing set Tuesday in Dane County Circuit Court where the judge who issued the temporary restraining order will decide to issue a full injunction, stalling the law further until a decision by the state Supreme Court.

[HereSince1628]

3. The WI court is not free of politics although the judges are 'nonpartisan'

and supposedly impartial...

http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/wisconsins-nasty-spring-election-impartiality-with-its-sleeves-rolled

[customerserviceguy]

4. I simply cannot imagine

that the state Supreme Court will refuse to take this case. It will all ultimately come down to that body to rule on the lawfulness of this action.

[Homer12]

5. The WMC owns the conservtaive members of the Court.

They have no morals they will vote to protect Walker. They are whores.

[Initech]

6. I can't imagine SCOTUS would rule in our favor after giving CU a free pass.

[cstanleytech]

7. Actually they might have to unless they want to risk new appeals regarding

corporations being granted the constitutional right to spend money freely to buy elections, after all in the end unions are a bit like a corporation in that its formed of a group of people who have a head and they thus should have constitutional rights including the constitutional right to have a speaker collectively bargain with their employer in this case the state of Wisconsin being the employer.

[Ellipsis]

8. Appeals court cedes Wis. union law to higher court

Source: Wisconsin Law Journal

By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state appeals court declined to rule Thursday on whether to allow a law stripping public employee unions of nearly all their collective bargaining rights to take effect, saying the issue should be decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

It’s appropriate for the state’s highest court to take the case because of the significant issues presented and the likelihood that it would end up there anyhow, the 4th District Court of Appeals said. It opted not to rule on whether a lower court judge properly issued an order last week temporarily blocking the law from taking effect.

The law remains on hold while the legal fight continues.

A majority of the seven-member Supreme Court must agree to take the case or it would remain in the appeals court. The higher court is under no deadline to make a decision.

Read more: http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/03/24/wis-appeals-court-doesnt-rule-over-union-law/

---

The law is still on hold and remains unpublished.

[aquart]

9. So a pissy court could thoughtfully consider the law for four years?

Which would amuse me greatly.

[HereSince1628]

11. But I don't think it would hold it for years...

The WI supreme court leans conservative at the moment. They might just take it up and rush to get it done before Prosser ("you goaded me to say the chief is a bitch") gets unseated.

[xchrom]

10. Recommend

[Scuba]

12. Urinal / Sentinel weighs in....

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118594454.html


"I don't know how the court's going to react to that" case, Prosser told Journal Sentinel editors and writers Thursday. "I know it would not be proper for me to react to that, to delay the case (past the election) because it might be embarrassing to me politically."

By the same token, Prosser said, it would also be improper for him to vote to take the case only to be seen as a Walker backer.

Prosser served with Walker in the Assembly, and in December Prosser's campaign said he would serve as a "complement" to Walker's administration. Prosser has disavowed that statement, saying he did not see it before it was released.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

13. Wisconsin's anti-union bill headed to state high court

Source: Reuters

The battle over Wisconsin's new law curbing the union rights of public workers is headed for the state Supreme Court after a lower court declined to weigh in on the issue.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which had been asked to throw out a week-old order temporarily blocking the law's implementation, said the issues involved were so fundamental -- a clash between the state's open meetings law and the separation of legislative and judicial powers -- that it made sense to send the case straight to state's highest court.

"Because this appeal presents significant issues, we believe the Supreme Court is the proper forum," the court wrote in its holding.

...In a statement, Rep. Pete Barca, the top-ranking Democrats in the state Assembly, said "it is good to see the courts are taking what I believe is a deliberate violation of the open meetings law on the part of Republican legislative leadership, very seriously."



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-wisconsin-unions-idUSTRE72N7D020110324

---

"Plainly, this case has broad statewide implications for the general public and those most directly affected by the challenged Act, in addition to those interested in the manner of its passage," wrote a three-judge panel of the appeals court, consisting of judges Paul Lundsten, Brian Blanchard and Paul Higginbotham.

This comes less than 2 weeks away from the election on April 5. The current make-up of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is 4-3 conservative-liberal. Supreme Court incumbant (thug) David Prosser is being challenged by Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg.

NPR headline for this story reads:

Wisconsin Court Race Turns Into A Political Dogfight
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/134828234/wisconsin-court-race-turns-into-a-political-dogfight
"The challenge puts a sharper focus on what had until recently been a sleepy campaign for the state Supreme Court. Some in Wisconsin now see that campaign as a referendum on Gov. Scott Walker...When protests swept the Wisconsin Capitol in February, Kloppenburg's campaign for Supreme Court justice got a jolt."

This should be very interesting...

[Blue Owl]

14. ALL HAIL KING WALKER

May His Majesty see fit to disembowel his own state, as the people voted for.

:sarcasm:

[iwishiwas]

15. Eeks. Lets hope Prosser is GONE before the case is decided. I will

read more to see when it is up. Also, the SCourt election is April 5 but I do not know when a new judge would take over. hopefull Prosser is OUT and Kloppenburg is IN.

[Kingofalldems]

16. K and R for Wisconsin

[iwishiwas]

17. Since the SC in WI is conservative leaning , I wonder why the Repugs are silent.........

.........Hannah Huffman, a spokeswoman for Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he had no immediate comment. A spokesman for Governor Walker did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.

(Writing by James B. Kelleher; additional reporting by Jeff Mayers)

[kickysnana]

18. Why does it take us 5-10 years to get heard and they get stuff heard STAT? n/t

[Marnie]

19. Because the lower court requested it.

Because the impact of the legislation if it stands effects thousands of citizens across a broad spectrum of state responsibilities, like education.

This is an issue of governance, and an issue that once implemented would be awkward to reverse, as opposed to an individual law suit.

[happyslug]

20. Depends on the type of case, and in this case State Law

Remember this is a STATE LAW issue not a Federal law or Federal Constitutional issue. Many states (my home state of Pennsylvania is one of them, I do NOT know about Wisconsin) the state Supreme Court not only has the right of final appeal, but also has the power of the "King's Bench". The power of the "Kings Bench" as used in Pennsylvania (and some other states) permits the Court with the "King's Bench" power to hear any case filed in any court in that state. Thus in Pennsylvania the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can intervene in any case at any time using this power and sit in Judgment of that case instead of whatever court it was first filed in.

Now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rarely exercises this power, but a lower court can ask that it does. That appears to be the case in Wisconsin, the lower court is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case and hear is in some sort of "King's Bench" power. If permitted by Wisconsin law, the hearing of the case is up to the State Supreme Court.

The Federal Supreme Court has no "King's Bench" power but has expedited cases in certain cases (One was during Watergate where the Supreme Court made a ruling on direct appeal, something rare for the US Supreme Court). On the other hand in 2000 the US Supreme Court, in regards to the re-count, only took the case after the State Supreme Court had refused to stop the re-count AND the Federal Courts in Florida had refused AND the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had refused. The US Supreme Court then stepped in a made it infamous decision, but only after other courts had made their decision first.

According to Wikipedia, Wisconsin DOES recognize "King's Bench" Power to its Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Bench_jurisdiction

It cites a paper from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/NR/rdonlyres/96F816DA-D829-4485-960E-642C92E866E5/0/8395AOPCChiefCounselTestifiesonKingsBenchAuthorityasSafetyValve.pdf

That paper also says the following state also have some sort of "King's Bench" power to its Supreme Court:
New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia.