“When the law is used to plunder, what does the law become? And when you try to use the law to defend yourself, it is used against you.” ~ Mark Levin speaking of Frederic Bastiat’s view on legal plunder
After the hard fought battle of Wisconsin Republicans to curb collective bargaining privileges for public employees was won in the legislature, and Gov. Scott Walker signed the bill into law, the Democrat Sec. of State Doug La Follette delayed publishing the law until March 25th…only to give activist Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi the opportunity to issue a temporary restraining order, barring the publication of the new law. You are witnessing legal plunder in action, folks!
This judge placates the critics of the bill by pointing to complaints that the Senate violated the open meetings law. Rush had something to say about this today:
“I've consulted with some legal experts that I know to try to explain what happened here in Wisconsin. Here's the best guess in the form of analysis right now. This judge, Judge Sumi, a county judge, issued a temporary restraining order against the Wisconsin law. The purported justification is to consider whether the procedure by which it was passed violated the state's open meetings law. So the judge said there's a question as to whether or not this happened legally, so we're gonna stop the law. We're gonna put a temporary stay on this law while we look and see whether or not it happened legally.”
Umm, why wasn’t this same action taken immediately after Congress rammed Obamacare down our throats? And wasn’t Judge Vinson’s ruling even a stronger reaction against the Obamacare legislation, that was by the way ignored by the administration? Stay for thee, but not for me, I guess? Rush continues:
“It turns out that they got procedural advice from the state Senate's chief clerk (who is said not be a partisan guy, has worked for both parties) and the state Senate, Wisconsin state senate's chief clerk laid out the rules for passage of the law -- which, after laying out those rules, the Republican senators complied with. Now, to us acts of the legislature are presumptively valid.”
That’s right folks, the Parliamentarian gave the Senate the green light to proceed. Furthermore:
“This judge, Judge Sumi, liberal activist judge, is wrong. From the rules of the Wisconsin Senate: "Senate Rule 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor," blah, blah, blah. "No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required ... and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published," if the Senate is in special session. It was in special session. No notice was required. Right there in Wisconsin Senate Rule number 93. So in layman's terms, Senate Rule 93, state of Wisconsin clearly state no notice has to be given during a special or extraordinary committee hearing.
Even so, the Democrats were e-mailed about the hearing. It was posted on the Senate bulletin board. They were advised. As I mentioned to you, the chief clerk, the state Senate chief clerk, who's not a partisan guy, worked for both parties, laid out the rules for passage to the governor. "Okay, here's what you gotta do, you have a special session, this, this, this, and this," and that's what they did. They did this, this, and this. They followed the law. They followed Senate rules. Rule 93 Wisconsin Senate clearly states no notice has to be given during a special or extraordinary committee hearing. The Democrats were e-mailed about the hearing. It was posted on the bulletin board. Essentially this judge is saying the open meeting law was violated. It wasn't. No rule was broken. So once again, put a boulder in the road, but the rule is clear, state law is clear, a judge has interceded and given the way things are with liberals on courts we don't know how this is gonna end up even though we know full well all is bogus, everything about this suit, everything about the temporary restraining order, it is a hundred percent bogus.”
There it is. The specific rule in question was abided by, yet because this didn’t end the way the Democrats wanted, they sought out an activist judge who’d give them their restraining order in hopes of bogging down the new law’s implementation, and hopefully defeat it. The liberal way: if you lose the legislative battle, you can count on the liberal court option. They never relent!
By the way folks, this is the same Wisconsin judge who back in February during the heat of the Madison chaos, refused the school district's request to send the teachers back to work, even though state law prohibits teachers (state union workers) from striking. That should give you a better idea of what kind of judge we’re dealing with. But even so, this lady is a county judge. A county judge in Wisconsin can tell the Wisconsin legislature how to do its job?!
This stinks some kind of rotten!
William Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog suggests that this ruling is ‘profoundly weak’:
“The standard for a TRO requires a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that a balancing of the equities supports granting the injunction. Some courts also consider whether granting the TRO will harm the public interest, but where the state is the party, this test really is subsumed in the balancing of the equities test.
It is hard to see how there is a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly if the Judge found no clear violation of any law or Senate Rule, but merely some vague conception of "public policy." The Senate clerk already has stated that the procedures used complied with the Senate Rules, and Courts normally do not interfere in a legislative branch's interpretation of its own rules. And let's keep in mind, that no amount of notice would have made a difference, because every single Democratic Senator had fled to Illinois and was refusing to attend any votes.
As to irreparable harm, and a balancing of the equities, there was no substantive deprivation of rights. Rather, there was at most a procedural error (even that is not clear). It is hard to see how there would be irreparable harm when the law simply could be passed, as is, if noticed for vote next week.
I assume that the state will seek an immediate appeal to overturn the injunction. But should the state fail to get it overturned immediately, the legislature simply should re-vote, with more notice. Either the Democrats will run away again, or they will show up. Either way, the result is the same -- the law passes.”
The bigger picture of this whole fiasco points to the hypocrisy of the Democrats, which is what I was alluding to when mentioning Obamacare earlier. If it’s a Democrat piece of legislation, well then it has to be immediately funded and implemented, unquestionably. If you question it, you’re an ‘extremist’! If it’s a Republican-passed law, then it must be questioned, scrutinized, and held up in court until the liberal powers that be determine that it should be thrown into File 13. WTF Wisconsin?! WI Republicans, please keep up the vigilance that you showed us before to maneuver past this liberal obstacle (perhaps teaching the old dogs leading Washington Republicans some new tricks)!
