Yesterday Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi issued a second court order clarifying that her original order enjoining publication of the anti-public employee union law proposed by Republicans Gov. Scott Walker, a law that was “published” (I think printed is still more appropriate) late last week by the Legislative Reference Bureau at the behest of Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. The LRB’s action was in clear violation of Judge Sumi’s original order, which restrained and enjoined any further implementation of the law, and despite the law not being officialy published by the Secretary of State as is required by the state Constitution, Gov. Walker and Sen. Fitzgerald insisted the law had been published and was in fact the law of the land. Gov. Walker’s administration then stopped collecting union dues and raised health insurance premiums despite ongoing debate about whether the law was actually law or not, but Judge Sumi’s order yesterday will hopefully bring things to a halt.
Here’s the gist of Judge Sumi’s order:
“Now that I’ve made my earlier order as clear as it possibly can be, I must state that those who act in open and willful defiance of the court order place not only themselves at peril of sanctions, they also jeopardize the financial and the governmental stability of the state of Wisconsin,”
Reacting to Judge Sumi’s order, Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald demonstrated that he’s no legal scholar, essentially arguing the judiciary has no role in the system of checks and balances that’s supposed to be an essential part of our democracy:
“It’s disappointing that a Dane County judge wants to keep interjecting herself into the legislative process with no regard to the state constitution,” Fitzgerald said in a written statement. “Her action today (Tuesday) again flies in the face of the separation of powers between the three branches of government.”
If Scott Fitzgerald were really so concerned about the state constitution, as he seems to imply, then he would have gotten Gov. Walker’s anti-union bill through the State Senate without resorting to a hastily called conference committee that likely violated the legislature’s own rules, not to mention state open meetings laws. The fact is, Scott Fitzgerald doesn’t care about the state constitution; all he cares about is doing what he’s told to do by Scott Walker.
Just like how the Obama administration ignored the Florida court that ruled Obama socialized government rationed healthcare, the state of Wisconsin just needs to ignore this union controlled activist judge.
Be warned people this is the type of activist judge you are going to get from the the far lefts candidate for supreme court.
Just like how the Obama administration ignored the Florida court that ruled
Four district courts have ruled on the issue, two of them upholding the law (and none of them have issued injunctions). Which one is the administration supposed to follow?
I think it’s funny how the right thinks that Sumi is a lefty appointed by known liberal Tommy Thompson.
anyone that doesnt agree with the hard right 100% just gets dismissed as a liberal(as if thats a bad word)
Couple of things jumped out to me. First of all, your comment, “essentially arguing the judiciary has no role in the system of checks and balances,” is a interesting. We’re not talking about checks & balances here. Those still exist – but the judiciary role in checks & balances is to overturn unconstitutional laws, not to force itself on internal policies & procedures of the legislature. Clearly someone doesn’t believe in separation of powers & checks & balances, it’s just not who you think it is. Because if, as you, and she believe – it’s not a law yet, then she’s the one overstepping.
Secondly this:
So the case before her is over the matter of whether the procedure of the legislature that created this law was followed properly. And in making a her ruling, she can’t help but express her personal opinion on the effect of the law itself. She’s showing her personal bias – and obviously letting it color her judgment. Not that that’s necessarily a surprise, just strange to me that she’d be so obvious about it.
not to force itself on internal policies & procedures of the legislature
Where is this talking point coming from? The open meetings law – enacted by the legislature – is not an internal policy.
Wisconsin Statutes, Sec. 19.97(2) pertaining to Open Meetings laws:
“No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.”
Wisconsin Senate Rule 93(2) pertaining to Special Sessions says:
“No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.”
Wisconsin Assembly Rule 93(3) says:
“A notice of hearings before committees is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin boards, and a schedule of committee activities need not be published.”
How else do you read that? There’s only one issue I’ve heard that questions this – is that this was a joint session and there isn’t specific language pertaining to that.
I don’t particularly care for the idea that the legislature exempted themselves from the Open Meetings law in this manner. I haven’t liked it when this exemption was used in the past either. I think it should be changed. But until it is, the laws as written should be followed.
From the March 18 hearing:
Judge Sumi: We’re not talking about the legislature enforcing its own rules, we’re talking about the legislature obeying a law that gives people public access to government.
AAG Lazar: Correct.
Judge Sumi: It’s not an internal rule, it’s a vastly external expectation — [a] right — that people have under the Open Meetings Law.
AAG Lazar: Absolutely correct.
It may work out that Judge Sumi is not correct…but at this point it looks like that determination is in the hands of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But until they rule it is important that the TRO be respected and obeyed…all of us have rules, regulations or laws that we disagree with but we have to follow them. The governor, the legislature, and the administration need to respect this TRO until it’s over ruled or withdrawn.
From a strictly procedural standpoint, I am having difficulty in seeing why Sumi has the ability to make a ruling because prior to enaction the controverey regarding the bill’s constituitionality is not ripe. The correct procedure would require the bill to become law before it can be challenged as unconstitutional.
There is wide ranging implications if a bill’s constitutionality can be challenged before it is law. Think about it, You could theortetically seek an injunction to prevent the senate or assembly from even voting on a bill that you believed was unconstitutional.
Without even leaving the state. 🙂
“There is wide ranging implications if a bill’s constitutionality can be challenged before it is law.”
This would be relevant if Sumi were considering the bill’s constitutionality.
I appreciate that a TRO is technically not a decision on the merits given the posture and timing of a TRO proceeding. (But in practice is usually is).
However, my qualm is that the standard of review requires the Court to consider the likelihood of success on the merits. Thus, to enter the TRO, Judge Sumi had to reach the conclusion that the currently inchoate bill would be uncostitutional if enacted. In fact, she did just that by holding that it was substantially likely that a violation of the open meeting law would render the bill unconstitutional. http://www.wicourts.gov/news/view.jsp?id=248
My recollection of constitutional law (which admittedly is not that fresh) is that an actual controversy is required before the constitutionality of a law can be determined. But a law cannot be held to be to be unconstitutional before it exists. As such, the controversy is not yet ripe and Sumi’s decision would be wildly premature.
“Thus, to enter the TRO, Judge Sumi had to reach the conclusion that the currently inchoate bill would be uncostitutional if enacted.”
You’re reading too much into it. Just because she mentions the constitution does not mean she’s ruling on the bill’s constitutionality.
She’s ruling on the conduct of the legislators. If she finds they were in violation of the open meetings statute, one possible remedy is to void the vote. The bill would not be deemed unconstitutional; the legislature could vote on it again if it chose to.
As Sven states…this isn’t about the contents of the bill at all…that may be a subtle distinction but a significant one…as far as I’ve heard the actual contents of the bill have never been brought up in the hearings…only the methods of enactment.
“they also jeopardize the financial and the governmental stability of the state of Wisconsin”
She’s simply talking about the cost of the litigation that the state is incurring by persuing this avenue…all they simply needed to do (as the judge openly stated) was bring the matter before the legislature after meeting the open meeting requirements…
Ed, do you really believe that? I simply cannot believe that’s what she meant.
While it’s crappy that a bunch of money will be wasted on litigation over this – that doesn’t remotely rise to the level of “jeopardizing governmental stability of the state.”
She’s talking about her view of the law’s effect and it being the “end of education as we know it,” etc.
I think she is talking about what would happen if the Office of the Governor and the Administration continue to flat out ignore her rulings.
How can anyone take a court seriously if the Governor doesnt?
but her personal bias is not about the draconian bill, it is strictly that she sits in awe that they so blatantly disregard court rulings.
Locke, are you seriously saying that a judicial injunction has no authority here? Judge Sumi had enjoined the law from being published. Going ahead and publishing it despite that order is the equivalent of someone getting a restraining order against you requiring you to keep away from that person, and you then proceeding to invite yourself into their home and plant yourself on their couch. I can’t think of anything more detrimental to the stability of the state government than certain agencies and individuals deciding to just blow off court orders whenever they feel like it.
Nope. Only that her jurisdiction shouldn’t exceed the individuals named before her. Let’s go with that restraining order example (that I gave in another thread). The restraining order would apply to me, the judge can’t just tack on additional people to it who aren’t part of the request.
In addition, it seems like there’s a well established precedent that the judicial branch needs to wait for a law to actually be fully enacted in order to rule on it. For them to get involved in how the legislature goes about it’s business is overstepping the separation of powers.
Unless I’m mistaken, Locke, that “well-established” precedent precedes the enactment of the open-meetings law. Because violation of that particular law makes voiding the vote one possible outcome, it’s logical to say that in this case the judicial branch is fully entitled to rule on whether the facts of this case do run afoul of the open-meetings law. In essence, what is being examined is the legality of the vote, not the constitutionality of the law itself. Important distinction.
↑
Pretty much this.
You see, the Republicans have three choices to go about this:
… And guess which one they decided to choose.
They could also pass the bill intact as originally planned, (Assuming the dems don’t leave the state again.) and moot the whole thing.
I ran all of this by my proctologist and he agrees with Locke.
We have a winner!
Did he find your head while he was in there?
Looks like Walker has finally pulled his head from somewhere.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/31/wisconsin-judge-declares-_n_843024.html