travelingtypist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 12:51 AM
Original message |
Emergency injunction -- who, when, where? |
|
Does anybody know which court would/could issue an injunction to prevent this piece of shit fascist trick from going into effect, if a Democrat or a Repubican appointed the judges on that court, or if judges in Wisconsin are elected, who would have standing to file for the injunction? There has to be a way to stop this besides the recalls, which will take forever.
If Walker and his thug friends thought they were in hot water before tonight, the heat just went up exponentially.
Un-fucking-believable.
|
Abq_Sarah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 12:54 AM
Response to Original message |
1. It would have to be a state court |
|
And they would have to determine the actions were illegal.
I haven't read the legislation so I can't give an informed opinion. If they divorced the spending portions from the collective bargaining, it probably wasn't illegal.
|
travelingtypist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. They violated the state's open meetings law. |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. A court is unlikely to rule on that. |
|
The legislature is the sole judge of their own rules. In fact, even the law which was supposedly broken says that it doesn't apply when contradicted by any legislative rule.
|
travelingtypist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Reminds me why I'm not a lawyer. |
|
It looks like the legislative rule part you're referring to has to be a positive exception to the open meetings law, rather than an omission or you just get to ignore the law whenever you feel like it.
I'm hoping there are some smart people who can figure out grounds to get an injunction. There sure as hell will be people damaged if this is allowed to stand.
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Indent see why it would need to be a positive exception |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 01:18 AM by FBaggins
But it doesn't much matter, because Rule 93 reads as one anyway.
Also... Yes... The legislature can pretty much ignore that law if they chose to. Probably half a dozen ways to get around it and the majority is really the only one that gets to rule on whether the rules have been followed. The same game exists in many legislatures.
Must be nice. I wish I had that kind of flexibility.
|
SlipperySlope
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Wisconsin state courts can't touch it. |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-10-11 01:31 AM by SlipperySlope
Wisconsin state courts cannot touch the rules of the Assembly or the Senate. If it is a law, yes then, but the Open Meeting law does not override rules of the senate or assembly. Challenge possible?
Not sure what happens next. I think it need reconciliation before the Governor will sign it into law.
|
Abq_Sarah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-10-11 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
There are apparently some instances where the open meeting law can be bypassed.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message |