Walker's collective bargaining reinstated!

C

Canceled2

Banned
YAHOO!

Governor Scott Walker has just won a huge victory as the Wisconsin State Supreme Court has ruled by a 4-3 margin to reinstate Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining reform law that had been blocked by a lower court activist judge.
 
this is a great ruling. nigel is going to shit himself....as far as i understand the issues, this matter is over. there is no federal right asserted or claim of any right being violated. unless i missed something, this was solely a state law issue.

as to the OP's claim of judicial activism. this catchy little phrase is abused by all sides. it has little meaning and is often incorrectly used, as it was in the OP. making a decision based on law, is not activism. that is what the lower courts did. misinterpreting the law is not activism and that is what the lower did. making an incorrect ruling based on law is not activism. the court created no new laws. this phrase has lost its value and is akin to crying racism.
 
Ice Dancer said:
YAHOO!

Governor Scott Walker has just won a huge victory as the Wisconsin State Supreme Court has ruled by a 4-3 margin to reinstate Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining reform law that had been blocked by a lower court activist judge.
Click to expand...

Now there's one problem:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-wisconsin-secretary-of-state-doug.html

June 15, 2011
Does Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette have the power to delay publication of the collective-bargaining law until June 28th?
"La Follette said he had consulted with his own attorney as well as his own staff to make sure he followed proper procedure. The problem, La Follette said, is there is no procedure for what happened on Tuesday when the Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, reinstated the collective-bargaining law that was passed in the Legislature."​

Incredible. How is it possible for this man to have the power to prevent a law from going into effect?

...

How can La Follette, a member of the executive branch, control the power that belongs to the legislature? According to Wisconsin Supreme Court, the way the legislature has provided for publication is — in § 14.38(10)(c) — to direct the Secretary of State to publish it. So La Follette had a statutory duty back in March. But the trial judge — Sumi — ordered La Follette not to publish the law. Now, Supreme Court's opinion declares the judge's order "void ab initio." That is, the order was always void. But knowing that La Follette wasn't ever bound doesn't cause something that didn't happen to have happened in the past. And indeed, the court's opinion looks to the future, saying "there remain no impediments to the Secretary of State fulfilling his obligations under § 14.38(10)(c)."

But there's another statutory provision that the main opinion fails to discuss, and it does seem to be an impediment. Justice Prosser, who's part of the majority, wrote a separate opinion, which brings § 35.095(3). As applied in this case, it presents a puzzling conflict:

(a) The legislative reference bureau shall publish every act . . . within 10 working days after its date of enactment.

(b) The secretary of state shall designate a date of publication for each act . . . . The date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment.

The Legislative Reference Bureau complied with the requirements of (a) back in March, and, as noted, La Follette, because of Judge Sumi's order, never fulfilled his obligation under (b). The main opinion said "there remain no impediments to the Secretary of State fulfilling his obligations under § 14.38(10)(c)," but that obligation is detailed in § 35.095(3)(b) in terms that are now impossible to fulfill. Maybe that's why they didn't want to talk about it! It's a problem that should never have arisen, but Judge Sumi's (invalid) order made it happen. Now what?

Why didn't the court just decide that the publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau was effective? When is the effective date of the law? It should be March 26th. How can it be June 28th if Sumi's order was void ab initio and it's too late for La Follette to publish "10 working days after the date of enactment"? I'm guessing that the court thought that as a matter of separation of powers, it had no business doing anything but getting out of the way of the legislature.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top