Do you RECALL (and I use the word assertively) The controversial, preconceived, and even physically choking decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on June 14?
Justice Shirley Abrahamson accuses the majority of 4 of giving case ‘short shrift’
In hastily reaching judgment, Justice Patience D. Roggensack, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman author an order, joined by Justice David T. Prosser, lacking a reasoned, transparent analysis and incorporating numerous errors of law and fact. This kind of order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority’s ultimate decision.
Chief Jusice Abrahamson was joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice N. Patrick Crooks in dissent in part from the order. It is exactly because the issues in the present case are of such constitutional and public policy importance that I do not join the order.
The Four Activist Judges Ruled Against Judge Sumi’s determination that the open meetings law had been violated
The Acitivist Judges above said that Judge Sumi’s order meddled in legislative procedure and was not relevant to the constitution.
“As the court has explained when legislation was challenged based on allegations that the legislature did not follow the relevant procedural statutes, “this court will not determine whether internal operating rules or procedural statutes have been complied with by the legislature in the course of its enactments.” Id. at 364. “[W]e will not intermeddle in what we view, in the absence of constitutional directives to the contrary, to be purely legislative concerns.”
“The court’s decision on the matter now presented is grounded in separation of powers principles. It is not affected by the wisdom or lack thereof evidenced in the Act. Choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the State of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts. The court’s task in the action for original jurisdiction that we have granted is limited to determining whether the legislature employed a constitutionally violative process in the enactment of the Act. We conclude that the legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used.”
In my own words
The four activist judges do not see how a committee meeting in the middle of the night to enact a law without following the rules of the legislature has anything to do with the Constitution.?
Read the full court decision
The lies and political ramblings of the GOP have gotten so tangled and twisted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court seems to have gotten caught in it’s own ironic net.Here is the IRONY
The Supreme Court grants the original action (allowing the law to end collective bargaining to stand even though it was passed at an unannounced, late night committee meeting) citing that Judge Sumi “usurped the legislative power”.
Yet, if they responded to political GOP pressure to rush the decision, and made the early announcement privy to GOP legislators – THEY “usurped the legislative power” that the whole argument is based upon! They not only aided and abetted the legislature from the bench, but got caught in the untruth of their own argument.
“This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature. It is important for all courts to remember that Article IV, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.”
I ain’t no lawyer…but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
And Now A Higher Federal Court Indicates Agreement Against the Majority Decision of June 14
The case is being heard by J.P. Stadtmueller of the eastern district of Wisconsin, Diane P. Wood of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Robert M. Dow Jr. of the northern district of Illinois, is about the constitutionality of the GOP district voting maps. What is very interesting here, is that the Fitzgerald brothers are using the same argument to defend the gerrymandered procedure. They are claiming the same legislative immunity protects them from having to reveal the specifics of how the lines were drawn.Judicial panel deals setback to GOP in redistricting case
This Time the Higher Court Disagrees
Lawmakers are immune from civil process during the legislative process, but the court ruled legislative immunity is qualified and does not extend to third party contractors.
“The court finds it all but disingenuous for the Legislature to argue that these items be subject to privilege in a court proceeding determining the constitutionality of the Legislature’s actions, when the Legislature clearly did not concern itself with maintaining that privilege when it hired outside consultants to help develop its plans,” the court wrote.
“The Legislature has waived its legislative privilege to the extent that it relied on such outside experts for consulting services. And, even without that waiver, the court would still find that legislative privilege does not apply in this case.”
And This is for the Four Activist Judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Legislative privilege is a qualified privilege that can be overcome by a showing of need.