Comments on: Is Act 10 effective right now?

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:13:32 +0000

IMO, those Dem’s better watch their asses. Old Chinese saying ‘be careful what you wish for, you may get it’.

My predicition – They try to push it to the Federal level ( done deal )

The Federal court, wherever they file, denies it. They appeal. Appellate 3-judge panel denies it. They go for ‘en banc’ there – either that is denied, or heard and they lose again. Then they go to SCOTUS for cert – and lose.

End result – they just set national Federal precedent, to encourage every other state that might be ‘on the fence’ about legislation to control the insane public unions.

Go ahead, guys – play your cards ! :-) You wanna go ‘all in’ ? Cool – you’re covered :-)

Dealer – deal ’em !

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:01:06 +0000

Unions file federal lawsuit to block anti-union bill

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=239486

By: steveegg

steveegg — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:40:37 +0000

In reply to PaulM. That's part of the news I was waiting for. I guess it's time to put the "clarify now" bug in him.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:39:03 +0000

There is hope !
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123921154.html

“Secretary of State Doug La Follette said Wednesday that he would publish the collective-bargaining law on June 28, which would make the new law effective on June 29.

A top Department of Justice lawyer, however, says Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling makes clear that La Follette must act immediately.

Steven Means, an assistant attorney general, told the Journal Sentinel in an email that the high court’s decision vacated Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi’s decision to halt implementation of the controversial law.

“We believe the Secretary of State’s 10 days to publish notice of publication has passed and that he must perform his statutory duties immediately,” Means wrote.

”

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:35:59 +0000

BTW, you do know who his great-uncle was, right ?

‘The originator of the Progressive Movement’ ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette,_Sr.

And Junior’s background as an extremist left-wing activist ?

By: steveegg

steveegg — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:50:00 +0000

In reply to PaulM. I've just sent an e-mail request to the legal staff in the Department of Administration, the plantiff in the Supreme Court case, to do just that.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:21:44 +0000

The SC said Sumi’s decisions, ALL of them, were “void ab initio, or invalid from the outset. “

By this reasoning, ( which is now the law in Wisconsin, BTW ), La Follette’s decision to retract his announced publication date, which he claimed he had the right to do under Sumi’s order, was in fact, by law, invalid. He had no such legal right, because Sumi’s decicion was “void ab initio, or invalid from the outset. “, IOW, it never had legal weight.

Thus, his initial date, 3/25 if I recall, is the only one ever legally scheduled.

Thus, the GAB’s act of publication at that time, under the S of S’s publishing order, should be held to stand. The law was in effect on that date, not two weeks from now.

I hope someone in Wisconsin is clueful, and files with the SC for a writ of mandamus or injunctive relife or whatever it is, today !!!! 4C(Quote)

By: steveegg

steveegg — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:17:07 +0000

In reply to PaulM. It's far beyond the fucking delay game, and there's more players than just La Follette. That's all I can say at this point, though I hope to have some more to say later today.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:04:42 +0000

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123921154.html

Secretary of State Doug La Follette said Wednesday that he would publish the collective-bargaining law on June 28, “thus making the new law effective on June 29.”

La Follette said he had consulted with his own attorney as well as his own staff to make sure he followed proper procedure.

**********************

Let me understand this – state law says ‘Must publish within ten days’. He’s going to take 14 ???? OH, not counting weekends, and not counting 2 days for him to ‘get legal advice’ ????

IOW – purest fucking delaying game, as expected.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:10:59 +0000

Count on La Follette to try to take A ) a few days to ‘consult with his attorneys’, and then another ’10 days as allowed by law’ ( he says ), under the false premise that it was not published on 3/25.

Obviously, his only ‘authority’ to delay before came from Sumi, who the SC has now said never had any such authority, ever, so La Follette therefore never had any authority to delay more than 10 days ending on 3/25. But don’t be suprised if it takes yet another round of court actions all the way up to SC again to get him to ‘set a date for publication’. He’s likely to say ‘Well, statute says I have to do it in ten days, but 2 months have gone by, and there’s nothing in statute that allows me to set a date AFTER the ten days, so I can’t do it now, so the whole thing is in nevre-never land’.