Left wing activist Judge Sumi is slapped down by the WI Supreme Court!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has just released a decision (here) overturning Judge Sumi’s ruling invalidating the Wisconsin collective bargaining bill.
Some key language from the ruling, which overturned Judge Sumi’s rulings both procedurally (for interfering in the legislative process) and substantively (there was no violation of the Open Meetings Law)(emphasis mine):
¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders and judgments of the Dane County Circuit Court in Case No. 2011CV1244 are vacated and declared to be void ab initio. State ex rel. Nader v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., No. 2004AP2559-W, unpublished order (Wis. S. Ct. Sept. 30, 2004) (wherein this court vacated the prior orders of the circuit court in the same case).
¶7 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….
¶9 Although all orders that preceded the circuit court’s judgment in Case No. 2011CV1244 may be characterized as moot in some respects, the court addresses whether a court can enjoin publication of a bill. The court does so because whether a court can enjoin a bill is a matter of great public importance and also because it appears necessary to confirm that Goodland remains the law that all courts must follow. State v. Cramer, 98 Wis. 2d 416, 420, 296 N.W.2d 921 (1980) (noting that we consider questions that have become moot “where the question is one of great public importance . . . or of public interest,” or “where the problem is likely to recur and is of sufficient importance to warrant a holding which will guide trial courts in similar circumstances”). Accordingly, because the circuit court did not follow the court’s directive in Goodland, it exceeded its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 1 and Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and erred in enjoining the publication and further implementation of the Act.
¶10 Article IV, Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution vests the legislature with the constitutional power to “provide by law” for publication. The legislature has set the requirements for publication. However, the Secretary of State has not yet fulfilled his statutory duty to publish a notice of publication of the Act in the official state newspaper, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 14.38(10)(c). Due to the vacation of the circuit court’s orders, there remain no impediments to the Secretary of State fulfilling his obligations under § 14.38(10)(c).
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that we have concluded that in enacting the Act, the legislature did not employ a process that violated Article IV, Section 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which provides in relevant part: “The doors of each house shall be kept open except when the public welfare shall require secrecy.” The doors of the senate and assembly were kept open to the press and members of the public during the enactment of the Act. The doors of the senate parlor, where the joint committee on conference met, were open to the press and members of the public. WisconsinEye broadcast the proceedings live. Access was not denied.[1] There is no constitutional requirement that the legislature provide access to as many members of the public as wish to attend meetings of the legislature or meetings of legislative committees.
Exactly as predicted by Prof. Bill Jacobson
Six republican Wisconsin senators are facing recall elections next month because their districts are so ticked off at them.
The republican response? They’re mounting a campaign to run fake democrats in the recall elections, to turn the July vote into a primary and force second elections to be held.
It’s been estimated that this fundamentally dishonest tactic, which involves the deliberate misrepresentation of candidates, will cost Wisconsin taxpayers over $428,000.
@Greg: That pales in contrast to the $8 million the Wisconsin union hissy fits cost.
Typical Greg. Derail a post with an off tangent post in an attempt to divert attention from a moonbat judge who abused her authority.
I also don’t recall comrade greg complaining about fake Conservative/Tea Partycandidates. Hypocrite, line one…
Gregster, need to do your homework on the fake candidates issue….Dems in Wisconsin used the exact same tactic a year or two ago…Where was your outrage then?
The liberal circus has once again rolled into town with the Budget debate and the Supreme Court ruling, just when it was becoming decent to go back downtown to patronize businesses without being inundated by mindless union drones.
Judge Sumi’s rulings were overruled both procedurally (for interfering in the legislative process) and substantively (there was no violation of the Open Meetings Law).
That’s pretty much telling the moonbat judge that there will be rule of law, not rule of men in this country.
Seems, in a tangental, but related area, Obama’s NLRB is being ignored by Boeing.
The aircraft maker opened their plant in NC and are now a going concern there.
Over the next few years Boeing may very well begin closing up shop in unionized plants and transferring the work to right-to-work states.
Interesting that the NRLB had made a deal with Boeing to do just that but then the NRLB was collared by the union and forced to withdraw their deal!
Real swift, Obama.
Not even a man of your word for a week!
@Nan G, #5:
On the majority decision to strike down Judge Sumi’s earlier ruling, from the 3 dissenting Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
Dissenting members included Shirley Abrahamson, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The dissenting Justices are essentially making a public statement that the goals of right-wing politics have just prevailed over non-partisan interpretation and application of the law at the highest level in the state.
Such a declaration is unprecedented. I suspect the backlash at the polls will be, too.
@Greg:
Greg, dissenting opinions always do this.
That’s why precedent is so important to case law in the USA.
The whole idea is to take each case back to the constitution.
But to also look at cases that related to it in the interim.
As a legal assistant to a new lawyer (years ago) I spent most of my time ”Shepardizing” cases for him from both his side and his opponent’s side.
@Nan G, #7:
At State Supreme Court level, dissenting opinions intended to become part of the court record never question the motives of those holding the majority opinion. Such motives are supposed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the workings the court. Suggesting that they do is tantamount to making a statement that the highest court is becoming dysfunctional–that the constitutional balance of power between branches of government is breaking down.
The deliberate breech of decorum speaks volumes. Particularly with a Chief Justice signing onto it.
@Greg:
Maybe you should look at the party affiliation of those in the dissenting opinion. Then you could start asking what THEIR motive is/was, in their written opinion. It’s kind of hard to scream “foul” when the side doing the screaming is acting exactly how they are accusing the other side of acting.
Not to mention, maybe you could actually read the court opinions yourself, instead of gleaning them from your leftist rags.
http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2011/2011ap000765.htm
The Wisconsin Supreme Court majority seems to have taken the same normal-procedures-be-damned approach to overturning the lower court’s decision that the republican majority took in passing Walker’s legislation in the first place.
I guess we’ll see what Wisconsin voters have to say at the polls in the recalls. Republicans could lose their legislative majority in short order; it that happens, Walker’s chances of getting the boot next year will rise dramatically.
What this dissent tells me is that the minority in this case was willing to sink to the lowest level of commentary.
Rather than actually express the supposed lies of the decision of the majority, these three alleged that facts were fudged.
Horrid name-calling.
Someone will have to be either recalled or impeached from the state supreme court over this.
I would say the poor losers should all be recalled or impeached.
They were the ones going beyond their traditions with this claim that the court is nothing but political.
Time for them to go.
Funny that they didn’t think through the consequences of their actions.
After all, the law the Gov. wanted was going to be passed one way or another no matter how the supreme court ruled.
I’m pretty sure the VOTERS will acknowledge and support the REPUBLICANS WHICH HAD THE COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS by doing what is right for all the citizens, UNIONYSE OR NOT,
THAT STATE OF WISCONSIN WILL ALWAYS BE RESPECTED BY THE OTHER STATES,
SOME WILL FIND BECAUSE OF THEM, THE SAME COURAGE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEIR STATES, AND DESERVE THE SUPPORT OF THEIR CITIZENS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR HAVING ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES THEY CAN TRUST TO ACT ACCORDINGLY IN ALL THE GOOD AND BAD SITUATIONS
Typical greg, projecting the behavior of his side onto us. That way he can pretend he’s part of the good guys and and we are the evil ones. Just admit it greg, you are okay with whatever your side does as long as it furthers your leftist agenda.
Rule of law triumphed over leftist thuggery and political/judicial corruption and comrade greg is upset.
Too bad you hypocrite.