Sunday, March 20, 2011

"Astonished", Rick? Surely You Jest!

The respectable LawProf expresses "astonishment" at the Madistan judicial activism.

Having taken a closer look at the text of Judge Sumi's decision in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, I am quite frankly astonished. The court seems to have managed to enjoin publication of the statutory changes in the budget repair bill without addressing any of the difficult issues that the case presents.

Her objective was to buy more time for additional union contract 'extensions' or 'settlements', Rick. This had nothing whatsoever to do with law, precedent, or any of that kind of stuff.

She, just like Abrahamson and Bradley, are poster-children for the End of the Rule of Law.

What's "astonishing" is that they are stupid enough to believe that the end of the Rule of Law won't affect them.

11 comments:

Tim Morrissey said...

Dad, you're gonna have to 'splain this to me. Why, instead of appealing the decision, don't they just re-notice the meeting and vote? Seriously.

Mr. Tastic said...

Then it would appear that they DID break the law - which they did not...

Just imagine the MSM headlines then!

Dad29 said...

Besides 'apperances,' the Dane County DA will simply re-file with ANOTHER set of made-up challenges, equally frivolous and un-founded.

What the AG and Walker want to do is squash the Dane County DA like a bug with one definitive ruling.

And they will succeed.

Remember, Tim, Dane County is THE Most Entitled County in the USA, if not the universe.

$100.00/$200.00 stop-loss deductible health insurance?

REALLY??

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

Open that door on this one, they become emboldended on every other law Walker passes that they don't like...

John Foust said...

Let's get rid of these silly checks-and-balances. Why can't everyone just get in line with the WisGOP and obey Walker? If it's good enough for Scott Fitzgerald, it's good enough for me!

Anonymous said...

My mistress needs a job. Is Scooter still hiring?

Anonymous said...

"This had nothing whatsoever to do with law, precedent, or any of that kind of stuff."

You would be correct, Dad29. It is about Fitzgerald and company claiming that the legislative branch's internal rules are not subject to judicial review even when those internal rules seemingly violate state law.

Dad29 said...

You're right, Anony.

Just like the Wisconsin Constitution says: the Leggies set their own rules.

Rick Esenberg has the cite on his blog.

Try again. Try to have the Constitution on your side this time.

John Foust said...

Show me where the Assembly or Senate rules for notice and posting extend or supercede the Open Meetings statutes.

Dad29 said...

Read the State Constitution, John.

I'll give you a test when you've finished.

Anonymous said...

Again, Dad29, show me where the Assembly or Senate rules for notice or posting extend or supercede the Open Meetings statutes.

Because if the Legislature can make any rule it wants regarding how it proceeds or conducts business, and can interpret those rules for itself without question, then why even have a Constitution, especially if those procedures seemingly contradict state laws? It seems that the legislative branch would not be beholden to any checks and balances if it could make any rules and then claim those rules are not subject to court scrutiny AND even supercede state laws.

Methinks Dad29 that if Democrats pulled this stunt he would be having a conniption fit.

Oh, by the way, your boy Eisenberg has a lot of explaining to do. He has yet to address certain points which run counter to his legal interpretation on the matter on his own blog...

and here.

illusorytenant.blogspot.com