Moving with alacrity, the conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled earlier today to reinstate Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to essentially end collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers in Wisconsin.
In a brief decision (seriously, only 8 pages?) Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler found that a committee of largely Republican lawmakers was not subject to the state’s open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure with little public notice. In making their decision, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court overruled Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi, who had enjoined final passage of the law.
As part of the majority opinion, Justice David Prosser lived up to his campaign promise late last year that he’d act as “a common sense compliment to both the new administration and legislature,” but I’m waiting for Prosser to call Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a “bitch” after she accused the conservative majority on the Supreme Court of having their minds made up before they issued their decision, with Abrahamson saying the conservative majority “reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority’s ultimate decision.”
UPDATE: Here’s Democratic State Senator Chris Larson’s take on the Supreme Court’s decision today:
“It is a shame that the partisan agenda of special interest groups and big corporations has seeped into the very foundation of Wisconsin’s court system,” said Sen. Chris Larson (D–Milwaukee).
In March of this year, Republicans forced passage of Act 10 despite their actions violating Senate Rules and Procedures. Act 10 was the first step in Governor Walker’s unprecedented attack on basic worker rights and the middle class.
“Today is a dark day for Wisconsin,” said Sen. Larson. “This legislation and the subsequent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court will undo over 50 years of progress in labor working with management to move Wisconsin forward.”
As Governor Walker and his rubberstamp Republican legislators have already made clear, this attack on worker’s rights was politically-motivated, not fiscal in nature, and will not be tolerated by the People of Wisconsin.
“We are reminded today what is at stake in Wisconsin,” said Sen. Larson. “Wisconsin is at the front of an unprecedented assault on workers and the middle class. Wisconsin voters will have a chance to move Wisconsin forward this summer. We have a big task ahead of us and it starts now.”
so is it a legal bill now even though LaFollette has NOT published it?
Jeff- The S.C.’s majority argument seemed to say that La Follette had to publish it into law for it to have any kind of restraining order against it in Dane Co. court (nice gymnastics trick, huh?). Because it was never law, Dane County Court couldn’t keep it from happening.
The other nice one is the argument that the Legislature can run things in any manner they want and that the Supreme Court can’t step on the methods that they do unless there’s a constitutional amendment in there. Unless you believe there shouldn’t be a separation of powers and checks and balances, that’s complete crock if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.
So I think it becomes law, and a suit immediately is filed to the Court of Appeals, particularly on the “courts can’t rule on legislative procedure” BS that the WMC-bought judges are trying to pull over.
Time for serious boycotts of everything WMC-related (I’ve been doing this with Johnsonville and others for years, but now it’s time to turn up the heat).
Not at all. Until it becomes a law, it’s not their place. You can’t strike down a law as unconstitutional until it’s actually a law. And there’s tons of precedent for this. Exactly no successful precedent for what Sumi did.
Um…Can you please explain to me your definition of separation of powers? Because it is exactly the separation of powers that made the Sumi ruling so egregious. If the courts can dictate internal procedures and process of how the legislature operates, then there is no longer a separation of powers between them. What’s the check to the judiciary for that?
Worse – as a practical matter, if this can happen, the legislature is basically just an extension of the courts. Nothing will ever get passed if every step of the legislative process has to go through the courts. Hell, maybe it’s a good thing if the legislature can’t pass anything. But it sure as hell isn’t consistent with a balance of powers.
I was under the impression that Sumi never ruled at all on the law just how it was passed, which makes her correct. It was passed illegally IF the legislature has to follow the open meetings laws.
The first mistake you make is in implying that this case had anything to do with the collective bargaining bill. It had exactly zero to do with that. The question before the courts was whether the legislature violated the state’s open meetings law. Whether or not the collective bargaining bill had or had not become law mattered not. It simply follows that if the open meetings law was violated, then whatever action taken by the legislative body while in violation would by law have to be null and void.
Which gets to the second mistake in your analysis. The open meetings law is a statutorily codified law, not a set of legislative procedural rules adopted by individual legislative bodies. Your assertion that the judicial branch has no role to play in determining whether laws have or have not been violated is a unique view, to say the least. Not sure what system of government you think we live under. I’d be curious, then, what you think the judicial branch DOES have the power to do!
You folks sure do twist yourselves into interesting knots when it comes to defending judicial activism that you agree with.
It most certainly does matter. If it has not become a law, then the courts don’t get to be involved. If it’s not a law, then they’re interfering with the legislative process – and again – separation of powers becomes meaningless. The legislature gets to set the rules it uses NOT the judiciary.
Yup. Read the law:
Listed under the Exemptions section:
Again – does it stink that they exempted themselves? Yeah. But they did. Where it conflicts with their internal rules (which it did) it doesn’t apply to the Legislature.
How else can you read that?
I don’t understand how the Supremes here decided that it isn’t their place to rule on procedure. Makes no sense whatsoever. 24 hours is 24 hours. Sure, they may be right that Sumi can’t enjoin, but they still violated procedure. Why have procedure at all if it can’t be enforced?
Basically, it is always the opinion of the court (as a part of that whole separation of powers concept) that the legislature can or cannot follow its own procedural rules in the process of legislating. This is because the legislature has the power to change those arbitrary rules whenever it wants. So, if it messes up along the way, the court would view that as a de facto change in procedure.
Our system of checks and balances does not imply that the executive or judicial branches of government can kill legislation before it is passed through the legislature, no matter how poorly the legislature follows its own arbitrary procedures.
Apparently the activist conservative majority on the WI Supreme Court doesn’t believe in the Constitutionally-outlined system of checks and balances.
Not much of what they do could really be classified as “conservative”
So – same question I posed above…
If a single judge can step in and dictate the internal procedures of the legislature, then what exactly is the check to the judiciary?
We go back & forth about legislating from the bench, but seriously, this line being crossed is as bright and stark as it gets.
How would this be any different than the legislature stepping in and saying that from now on, the Supreme Court must have a 2/3 majority to overturn anything? Or passing a law that says that it cannot be overturned by the courts?
“How would this be any different than the legislature stepping in and saying that from now on, the Supreme Court must have a 2/3 majority to overturn anything? Or passing a law that says that it cannot be overturned by the courts?”
It would be different in that the court would in those cases be considering a law mandating a 2/3 court majority or one outlawing judicial review.
Jake, that’s what every one said. The dissents /concurrences did not believe the court had original jurisdiction.
That being said, I thought crooks probably best stated the rationale. I didn’t find abrahamsons concurrence convincing. To criticize prosser for claiming that there was no dispute of facts is odd. Indeed if there was a fact dispute, sumi’s decision would necessarily be overturned so that the record could be developed at the trial court level.
The separation of powers argument could have been developed better. I didn’t find either position compelling. I guess what we need to know is whether the open meetings is a legislative rule, meant to apply only to law makers. Or is it an over arching public policy aimed at the public at large. I can see legitimate arguments on each side. But given the expediency they were not developed. Abrahamson used her concurrence to take a pot shot at prosser and the majority concluded that it was Legislative rule in a conclusory
fashion.
Isn’t that pretty clear? It was aimed at local governments as evident from the fact that the legislature exempted themselves where their own rules conflict with the law. As they say, for thee, but not for me.
Is that good policy? I don’t think so. But that’s how they wrote the law.
A nice point bolstering my line of argument above…
Concealed Carry WIN
Collective Bargaining WIN
High Speed rail WIN
Supreme Court WIN
Now lets take a look at progressives scoreboard…..
As if what’s happened since Republicans took control can’t be undone when Democrats are back in charge.
I get the fact that you want to gloat about your side “winning,” but just remember that politics is ebb and flow. Republicans may “rule the roost” right now, but that can and likely will change.
Jobs leaving the state WIN
People leaving the state WIN
Future leaving the state WIN
not much of a win to me.
“Now lets take a look at progressives scoreboard…..”
Hey, glad ya asked! Just to glance at the tip of the iceberg:
– The Declaration of Independence
– The Bill of Rights (including, yes, the 2nd amd.)
– voting rights for non-property-owners
– abolition
– citizenship for non-whites (14th amd.)
– women’s suffrage
– legalization of interracial marriage
– public university system
– universal public education
– child labor laws
– the National Park system
– the 40 hour work week
– weekends
– sick leave
– vacations
– minimum wage
– 18 year old suffrage
– direct election of U.S. Senators
– progressive taxation
– FDA to inspect our food supply
– repeal of prohibition
– social security
– the SEC
– the FDIC
– OSHA
– medicare
– medicaid
– the Civil Rights Act of 1964
– universal suffrage (Voting Rights Act of 1965)
– integrated schools
– integrated lunch counters
– rivers no longer flammable, air no longer combustible (the EPA)
– the end of DADT
– gay marriage and/or civil unions in many states…and growing
All things fought tooth and nail by conservatives (of many and all parties) at the time of their achievement.
Progress is often slow, but it is steady and unstoppable.
Enjoy your temporary victories.
“Now lets take a look at progressives scoreboard…..”
Hey, glad ya asked! Just a tip of the iceberg:
– Declaration of Independence
– Bill of Rights (including, yes, the 2nd amd.)
– voting right for non-property-owners
– abolition
– citizenship for non-whites
– public university system
– universal public education
– child labor laws
– women’s suffrage
– 18 year old suffrage
– legalization of interacial marriage
– the 40 hour work week
– weekends
– sick leave
– vacations
– the National Parks system
– the FDA to check our food supply
– direct election of U.S. Senators
– the SEC to check Wall St
– repeal of prohibition
– the minimum wage
– the FDIC to protect us from banks
– OSHA to save millions of lives in the workplace
– whistleblower protections
– Social Security
– Medicare
– Medicaid
– integrated schools
– integrated lunch counters
– the Civil Rights Act of 196(4?)
– the Voting Rights Act of 196(5?)
– rivers no longer flammable, the air no longer combustible (the EPA)
– COBRA
– FMLA
– end of DADT
– gay marriage and/or civil unions in many states…and growing
All fought against tooth and nail, and mostly defeated time and time again by conservatives (of many and all parties) before their achievment.
Progress is often slow, sometimes stopped, but always inevitable.
Enjoy your temporary victory.
Lets take a look at who really supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall we…..
By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Oh hey Nota, buddy, thought I’d throw this progressive achivement in there too:
– women’s autonomy over their bodies (Roe v Wade)
You know, the issue that makes you think that killing liberals is a positive for the country.
http://bloggingblue.com/2011/04/09/compromise-on-the-national-stage/#comment-64357
Excuse me. Threatening to kill people, or even implying that is a good thing, does not belong on a message board. If I have a vote, it is to offer you the chance to take back your words and apologize, fully with a complete display of your understanding of why any suggestion of “killing” anyone for political reasons is morally reprehensible. If you cannot do such, then I’d ban you.
Just to make things clear – those were the infamous words of Notalib, not me. Follow that link and you’ll see where that came from.
Oh you mean the progressive are proud of the fact they got the right to kill babies, interesting.
Outstanding!!!!
Nota is a special brand of crazy.
You sound like Charlie Sheen. You do know that, right?
No one ‘won’ in Wisconsin today. Only the corporates… who are not people.
A few points:
– You have the freedom to decided whether or not to join a union.
– You have the freedom to not pay union dues.
– You have the freedom to collectively bargain for wage increases.
– You finally have to see the deduction on your pay stub that correlates to the various high value benefit packages your union “negotiated” for you to receive.
If not for the high growth rate for benefits this past decade, this would save state employees bundles in take home pay. Maybe it’s time to rethink the low copay healthcare plans?
FInally, since this only applies to state government employees, I don’t think the “corporates” will care much.
Of course since you bear the monicker “econ101”, you surely understand that the macroeconomic net result of union busting and general weakening of workers’ rights is to drive down the price of labor over the entire pool, thus making everybody in that labor pool worse off. Which is a perfectly legitimate position for you and the folks at the top of the pyramid to defend. Just makes no sense when people in that labor pool at the bottom of the pyramid get suckered into dividing against each other and thus against their own economic interests.
Actually, a few months ago, you might have noticed my model which noted that states with high unionization rates have lower real incomes per capita. Unions drive the price of everything they touch up, and as a consequence, consumers have less buying power in those areas.
I find it rather amazing that 20% of the population is so effective at lowering real wages for the remaining 80%. Then again, with the benefits packages (health, pension, etc) that unions have demanded since the mid 1970’s as a supplement to pay, it’s no wonder why such a small slice of the workforce can have such a huge impact on aggregate price levels.
As case in point, the effects of the UAW on US auto manufacturers were profound. While a GM or Ford may sell at a comparable price to a Toyota, the Toyota had about $5,000 more invested into its construction and materials. US manufacturers had to use that money paying for retiree benefit packages that were negotiated in the mid 1970’s.
If not for the union, US auto manufacturers would have been able to maintain market dominance.
In regards to Mr. Frum, all his chart highlights is in part what I just mentioned. Largely, this wage stagnation (relative to inflation) is a symptom of technology advancement. GDP has been able to explode over the past two decades without a massive increase necessary in labor.
The Cobb-Douglas model would imply that as technology and productively advance, the growth rate of labor necessary to maintain a constant growth of GDP declines.
The loose Fed policies from the 1990’s forward (along with other drivers of price levels, including relatively recent union benefit demands) have allowed inflation to surpass wage growth and lead to declining real wages.
Combine this with an ugly regulatory environment and a corporate tax structure which punishes US firms that being back home profits made abroad… you have all the incentives for job growth to die off in the US and explode elsewhere where labor may not be as skilled, but is certainly cheaper.
Anyways… you may want to rethink your support of unions, because it’s not quite as simple as it seems. The effects of their wage and benefits growth in no way seems to benefit anyone else. It actually seems to hurt the rest of the aggregate labor force.
not sure how anyone can logically and with a straight face say that if not for the unions the US car companies would have maintained their dominance. Seriously!
If not for the unions nearly bankrupting the US car companies and the outlandish demands of environmentalist US cars companies would still be dominate.
I’ll agree with that. Bad management was the largest reason for their problems and would’ve brought Detroit down even if there had been no other issues. That said, the unions have certainly been a major contributor – both in terms of the huge difference in the labor cost ($1400 per car in retiree health care costs alone) as well as the production quality problems (both real and perceived) that still plague them.
I’ll definitely agree that management is the bigger culprit (particularly in the 70’s and 80’s), but the who held them hostage since then? I’d argue the unions…
That “technology advancement” line is highly debatable. If declining income of the U.S. middle class were attributable largely to technological advancement, it would follow that the same trend would show up in other developed countries. It doesn’t. This vast decline in U.S. middle class wealth is largely unique to the U.S., and correlates nearly precisely with both the rapid decline in union membership and the rapid decline in the top marginal tax rates.
Another data point that indicates that said correlation may even imply causation: Canada’s union membership levels and its top marginal tax rates have remained more or less steady over the last 30 years, and so has their middle class’s share of income.
Also, too:
http://www.frumforum.com/incredible-shrinking-workers-income
From the conservative David Frum. Think it’s a coincidence that the trend heads downward starting around 1980, when the conservative era in which we currently reside of union busting and middle class shaft-sticking started?
Or that the time of greatest middle class wealth was during the heyday of the high taxes on the upper income bracket and the heyday of union strength?
Note I’m not a union member, but these are the reasons I support them wholeheartedly. They’re good for us all.
Honestly, a reason why I stopped following the conservative movement was partially because David Frum started backing away from it himself and began to criticize it. I don’t agree with the conservative movement no longer, but I do believe he is one of the few people who actually ‘get it’ if that makes sense. Most people now days just dodge the accusations and use spin tactics that you see on the Fox News Business Network. ( Which there is a reason why businessmen don’t watch it. Because spin tactics don’t work in a business on the principle that we’re in reality. )
Econ101 – sometimes you hit right on the dot like in the case of the gun rights and statistics. This one isn’t a case where you do so. In reality the more money trickles upward, the more a tax burden will follow onto the middle class because we’re getting less money due to jobs going overseas, big corporations swallowing up smaller businesses before they have a chance to grow, and the laws that force small businesses to take a middle man instead of selling their own products directly. It wasn’t unions that killed the economy otherwise we would have crashed almost immediately when they formed – they did not become ‘a problem’ until policies changed to make it harder on smaller businesses. Aka, the Trickle down effect. Even David Stockman, Reagan Budget Director and architect of his Trickle down policies, today publicly admits that Trickle down has been a failure.
By reducing upper level tax rates and capital gains tax rates, the burden is not shifted to the middle class. If you paid 20% in federal income taxes, you will still pay 20%. However, by reducing things like the capital gains tax… you will increase profits of any investment income that middle class individuals may hold directly or indirectly.
Cutting upper level tax rates in no way incentives the outsourcing of jobs. That I would place on a few things, but only one tax related item I’ll mention. US companies that repatriate foreign made profits must pay the difference in tax between the foreign rate already paid and the US rate. For example, a firm with a branch in France would need to pay about an additional 12% tax on any income it brings home to the US.
The problem is fairly obvious… companies have a large disincentive to reinvest at home with revenue made from abroad. Not only that, but by leaving funds abroad, it retains value in the firm and can in turn reduce borrowing costs. Why would a company use existing funds taxed at least 12% for reinvestment at home when it could borrow them for 0-5%? It doesn’t sound to bad, but the problem with that, is that the low interest rates required for this activity imply that the Fed is inflating the dollar… which makes everyone at home poorer. Otherwise, with higher interest rates, companies would reinvest at an even lower rate at home.
Honestly, there isn’t much good about knocking off this type of activity (except in the case of monopoly or duopoly). This is generally a symptom of a healthy market moving towards maximal efficiency as firms exploit economies of scale, etc. This behavior is cyclic and healthy on a macro level.
Generally speaking, laws such as these are a symptoms of over-regulation and liberalism. However, I’m sure some conservative has rolled out something idiotic like this before in an effort to protect some favored industry… ethanol is my favorite example whenever it comes to idiotic public policies.
I’m not saying that unions killed the economy, I’m just saying that the idea that the existence of unions improves everyones quality of life isn’t factual anymore.
The unions improving everyone’s quality of life is more factual now than ever. It is just as relevant now as the turn of the century! nice try though.
Also cutting cap gains taxes just incentives them to cash out, raise cap gains taxes and it incentives the business owners to invest in the business.
If you wouldn’t mind, I’d honestly like to better understand your first point. Where is there room for unions to improve working conditions in modernity (other than shortening the work week)?
I have no problem with the existence of a union when there is a legitimate grievance to be addressed… but constantly arguing that wages and benefits are low (when they clearly are not) doesn’t seem to quite justify the existence of what has become a permanent political lobby.
…
The only real effect of cutting capital gains tax rates is a potential increase in stock market volatility. It’s really just increasing liquidity. Whether or not someone liquidates a business or not shouldn’t be affected… that type of decision should be based on performance, so if things were bad and it looked like a good time to cut and run, to a rational person, it wouldn’t matter what the capital gains tax rate was.
Even if liquidations increased, those assets are still being bought and used, so you would only increase the liquidity of business assets… that would seem to be a good thing.
Finally… anything invested in a business should be treated as a “sunk cost” and should not be taken into account when making an economic decision.
With due respect (because though you’re wrong about everything, I like you!) that quote puts you out of touch with how vast swaths of people in this country live. Potentially even a majority. I don’t get the sense with that line that you’ve ever experienced long-term economic hardship in your life.
Other than wages, of course, since real income has become such a sad state the last 30 years, I’ll share this anecdote. In my profession, I deal almost exclusively with heavy industry as my clients, and one sector in particular (not inclined to say which so as to preserve some anonymity, but it doesn’t really matter which). Deaths in the workplace are still very common, and unions are basically non-existent nowadays in said industry. Despite OSHA’s best efforts (or worst efforts during lax enforcement Republican administrations), they can’t be omnipresent, and nearly everyday I see decisions get made whereas cost or speed or efficiency over safety are made. They all pay lip service to safety being a priority, but they don’t pay money to it and everyone knows it. Unions would change that and save real lives of real people.
There is no study outside a conservative “think” tank that has found trickle on economics to be a success for anyone but the weathiest citizens — that’s fact, not opinion. If that is the intent, then trickle on is a success, but that isn’t how it’s sold. Trickle on is sold as an economic model that helps float all boats, but ends up with the boats of the middle and lower classes getting peed into.
I wasn’t arguing trickle down, I was laying out some economic theory. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to believe any black box theory on its face (like saying cutting taxes creates jobs), I like to see some mechanics… try and answer the how and why questions that pop up.
Great. Now I fell all dirty and violated for having a like-mindedness with you on something.