Earlier today Dane County Circuit Court Judge Juan Colas rejected a request by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen for a stay of Judge Colas’ original order from September striking down the provisions of Act 10. In his original ruling, Judge Colas cited controversial documents such as the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions in striking down Act 10, which stripped public employees of virtually all of their collective bargaining rights.
A judge has rejected the state of Wisconsin’s request to put on hold his earlier ruling striking down large portions of Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s contentious collective bargaining law.
Dane County District Judge Juan Colas on Monday released his ruling rejecting the request for a stay.
Colas in September ruled the law stripping most public workers of nearly all their union rights violates teachers and local government workers’ free speech, free association and equal protection rights.
Obviously Judge Colas’ rulings are just the first steps as the suit against Act 10 winds its way through Wisconsin’s courts, and while I tend to be an optimist, there’s little doubt the activist conservative majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court will stand with Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
I hope Dane County stands by Judge Colas. He will be a target for the ALEC government, and we can’t afford to lose people with the courage to stand up for justice despite them.
J.B. Van Hollen has to be one of two things; he is the most incompetent legal representative of the people in Wisconsin history OR he is in league with Walker as an ideologue who places his personal politics above the law.
Oops,there is another possibility; Van Hollen is both.
Today,AG JB Van Hollen “…asked the Court of Appeals to issue a stay on a decision by Dane County Judge Juan Colas, which found portions of the law limiting collective bargaining for public employees unconstitutional.”
http://www.wrn.com/2012/10/van-hollen-asks-appeals-court-to-stay-act-10-ruling/
Judge Colas recently refused a stay by Van Hollen on his decision which ruled parts of ACT unconstitutional stating Van Hollen had failed to show that “irreparable harm” would be incurred.
In my opinion, yes and no. Certainly “irreparable harm” would be incurred by the dummies who passed ACT 10, and by the dummy who signed it into law, and, last but not least, by the dummy who is defending it. But I see no harm to 99% of Wisconsin citizens.
And for the “irreparable harm” record, see page 4:
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/memorandum-support-motion-stay-final-order-pending-appeal.pdf
These days, Duane, the idea that a politician or lawyer with the GOP is a pretty good first hypothesis.