According to the complaint at the title to this entry, that might be the case.
Judge Maryann Sumi listens to arguments at a hearing in Dane County Circuit Court in Madison, Wis., on a request to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the Secretary of State from publishing the controversial budget repair bill. (Mark Hoffman/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
Procedurally, what is happening is a 'stay' of the bill. Judge Sumi is being painted as an activist judge by the Right Wing media. She is a prudent judge. She ordered the temporary restraining order because there is no reason not to. She is obligated to provide a hearing for such complaints. Whether that temporary restraining order turns into a permanent restraining order until a full hearing is conducted is a good question. For now, Judge Sumi is saying she has to review the particulars of the case before she can rule on the new law.
The State of Wisconsin wants to appeal the decision, but, in all honesty there isn't anything to appeal yet. This is only a temporary restraining order. It is almost obligatory for the case to proceed.
...Secretary of State (click here) Doug La Follette planned to publish the law on March 25, but the judge's order will prevent that from happening, at least for now....
Procedurally, what is happening is a 'stay' of the bill. Judge Sumi is being painted as an activist judge by the Right Wing media. She is a prudent judge. She ordered the temporary restraining order because there is no reason not to. She is obligated to provide a hearing for such complaints. Whether that temporary restraining order turns into a permanent restraining order until a full hearing is conducted is a good question. For now, Judge Sumi is saying she has to review the particulars of the case before she can rule on the new law.
The State of Wisconsin wants to appeal the decision, but, in all honesty there isn't anything to appeal yet. This is only a temporary restraining order. It is almost obligatory for the case to proceed.
...Secretary of State (click here) Doug La Follette planned to publish the law on March 25, but the judge's order will prevent that from happening, at least for now....
On this alone there is an obvious violation of the public trust. The judge has to obtain the information regarding the people that wanted to attend and could not and to determine if the room chosen for the Special Session was an OBSTRUCTION to the proceedings. It seems obvious they manipulated the environment of the meeting room and obstructed public attendance. That is serious stuff. No legislation is allowed to simply carry on as if they are not in service to the public which elected them. They cannot simply 'fix' the way a vote or hearing is conducted to have a SPECIFIC outcome. I think this is impeachable stuff.
The Special Session notice.
Seating for the public and legislative staff will be limited. Access for the public will be available by contacting the Sergeant-at-Arms staff outside the 2nd floor entrance of the Senate Chamber 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.
Seating for the public and legislative staff will be limited. Access for the public will be available by contacting the Sergeant-at-Arms staff outside the 2nd floor entrance of the Senate Chamber 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.
LIMITED does not mean impossible to attend. The notice to the public only needed to be announced to the people outside the door. There were plenty of people that would have notified the Sergeant-at-Arms they wanted to attend. It sounds like a lot of manipulation.
The complaint
20. That the meeting was held in the Seante Parlor, which is a small room with very limited space for the public, and was not reasonably accessible to members of the public or all citizens, in violation of Wis. Stat. %%1981(2) and 19.82(3);
I stand corrected, there were no public around to attend at all. It was very, very manipulated.
21. That the Capitol was locked before the meeting and that citizens who wishded to attend the meeting could not enter the building to attend the meeting, in violation of Wis. Stat. %%19.81(2), 1982(3), and 19.96:
That is only the beginning of the notice. The notice goes on. This is just one aspect of the complaint. It sounds like the public trust was violated.
The proceedings violated the "3 member" provision of the notice. There were suppose to be three members of the House and Senate. There were only two State Senators and three House members, so the rules were violated. This is not a minor complaint. The public trust was violated. There is suppose to be AT LEAST one minority member of the three representatives. There were two State Senators because the Democratic Senators were not in state at the time. They proceeded in violation of their own rules. Of course, there was no Democratic Senator.
The bottom line here is that the Wisconsin Republicans VIOLATED the public trust and the procedure of the Special Session. The law has to be struck down for it was a rush to legislate, because, their Governor was having a hissy fit.
There is nothing 'activist' about this judge. She is upholding the law as it was written by the Repubican Senate and House. She doesn't want to lose her job. The best the State can do is appeal it after there is a permanent Restraining Order as it is set for hearing and HOPE there is some higher law that overrides their OWN Special Session rules. Somehow, I don't believe the Republicans are at all realistic about this law or its integrity or its ability to be restrained by judicial review.
The Senate Democrats should still be in Illinois.
As far as I am concerned, this Special Session was simply a stunt to fool the Wisconsin Democratic Senators to return to the legislature so the Republicans can have their way about everything. Walker puts on a lot of 'legislative drama' but very little sustance. One has to wonder how valid ANY legislation is now that the Democratic Senators have returned UNDER DECEPTION AND DURESS. I am of the opinion that any legislation coming out of this session of the Wisconsin Legislature, including the budget, is highly litigable considering the 'circumstances' of its origins. I also believe it can be litigated until Walker and adverse Senators and House members can be repealed.
The public outcry was significant and it is all documented both in newspapers and multi-media including video and social networking sites. I really believe Walker and his Republicans have created a monumetal mess and they need to be removed from office. I don't believe the problems from this session will be over soon for the people of Wisconsin. I don't even see the concessions by the unions as valid and members need to sue for their benefits and pensions as they existed before all this happened.
I see this temporary restraining order as a beginning to restraining orders on nearly every aspect of this Wisconsin legislative session. There are huge ethical violations and a lot impacts on the 'integrity' of the legislation.
That is only the beginning of the notice. The notice goes on. This is just one aspect of the complaint. It sounds like the public trust was violated.
The proceedings violated the "3 member" provision of the notice. There were suppose to be three members of the House and Senate. There were only two State Senators and three House members, so the rules were violated. This is not a minor complaint. The public trust was violated. There is suppose to be AT LEAST one minority member of the three representatives. There were two State Senators because the Democratic Senators were not in state at the time. They proceeded in violation of their own rules. Of course, there was no Democratic Senator.
The bottom line here is that the Wisconsin Republicans VIOLATED the public trust and the procedure of the Special Session. The law has to be struck down for it was a rush to legislate, because, their Governor was having a hissy fit.
There is nothing 'activist' about this judge. She is upholding the law as it was written by the Repubican Senate and House. She doesn't want to lose her job. The best the State can do is appeal it after there is a permanent Restraining Order as it is set for hearing and HOPE there is some higher law that overrides their OWN Special Session rules. Somehow, I don't believe the Republicans are at all realistic about this law or its integrity or its ability to be restrained by judicial review.
The Senate Democrats should still be in Illinois.
As far as I am concerned, this Special Session was simply a stunt to fool the Wisconsin Democratic Senators to return to the legislature so the Republicans can have their way about everything. Walker puts on a lot of 'legislative drama' but very little sustance. One has to wonder how valid ANY legislation is now that the Democratic Senators have returned UNDER DECEPTION AND DURESS. I am of the opinion that any legislation coming out of this session of the Wisconsin Legislature, including the budget, is highly litigable considering the 'circumstances' of its origins. I also believe it can be litigated until Walker and adverse Senators and House members can be repealed.
The public outcry was significant and it is all documented both in newspapers and multi-media including video and social networking sites. I really believe Walker and his Republicans have created a monumetal mess and they need to be removed from office. I don't believe the problems from this session will be over soon for the people of Wisconsin. I don't even see the concessions by the unions as valid and members need to sue for their benefits and pensions as they existed before all this happened.
I see this temporary restraining order as a beginning to restraining orders on nearly every aspect of this Wisconsin legislative session. There are huge ethical violations and a lot impacts on the 'integrity' of the legislation.
