Van Hollen finally (FINALLY!!!) opened up the 105's and let 'em rip in what's called a "Petition for Supervisory Writ."
And I mean "let 'em rip":
Among the black letter law and clearly enunciated jurisprudence ignored by Judge Sumi in issuing three TROs which purport to invalidate the Budget Repair Bill and enjoin it from becoming law are the following:
* Legislators are immune to civil process during the legislative session and are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
* The TROs purport to enjoin actions by parties not named in the action.
* The last TRO purports to make a declaration of law, an act which is unlawful on its face.
* The TROs were issued without the Court having even considered the threshhold issues as to whether it had jurisdiction to consider the claims before it.
* The remedy sought–and granted–is not available under the Open Meetings Law.
* DAs do not have the Constitutional authority to bring actions challenging the constitutionality of statutes.
* The courts are have no power under the state constitution to “intermeddle” in the legislative process prior to a bill becoming law, a process which is not complete under Wisconsin law until the bill is published, the very act the TROs purport to enjoin.
* Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent plainly states that legislation may only be invalidated where it violates the constitution beyond a reasonable doubt
* Legislative procedures which are not constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject only to political remedies; the Open Meetings Law, a statute, is not one such and treating it as one amounts to an amendment to the state Constitution
* Attempting to enjoin the Secretary of State is invalid under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which the Secretary may not waive.
This ignorant politician scumbag (and the ditto DA) have to be made to understand that if they choose to invalidate the rule of law, they have chosen hemlock.