In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court is the final authority on the law. When the governor and legislators resort to lawlessness, the court has the responsibility to stop it.
That is, if the court itself considers upholding the rule of law to be more important than petty, partisan politics.
Sad to say, in Wisconsin, it doesn't.
The decision by the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court claiming that legislative Republicans did not have to obey the state's open meetings law in passing Gov. Scott Walker's bill destroying union bargaining rights was shocking.
People all across the state should have been outraged by the court's lawlessness.
Instead, very few were surprised the four-member Republican majority on the court—two of who previously faced corruption charges—made a corrupt decision.
But we should never become so jaded by growing political corruption in our state that we're not shocked when a state Supreme Court justice who went to law school writes that a circuit court judge who threw out an illegally passed bill was wrong to rely on laws “that apply to the Legislature except when the Legislature says they do not.”
That phrase comes from the opinion of former Republican legislator David Prosser, who recently squeaked to re-election on the court after a Waukesha County clerk failed to report 14,000 votes for two days.
(In the bad, old days of real election fraud, political machines would routinely hold back a couple of wards until all other votes were counted so they would know how many votes their candidate needed to win.)
But the shenanigans behind closed doors in Waukesha County pale in comparison to Prosser's first legal opinion since the election, claiming Republicans in the Legislature have the right to decide whether to follow state laws.
Under the rule of law, politicians from the president of the United States on down do not get to decide which laws apply to them.
Watergate proved not even President Richard Nixon was above the law. Nixon seriously told interviewer David Frost that if the president did something, it wasn't illegal—apparently not even running a burglary ring out of the White House.
Nixon's conservative Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the ridiculous claim, which was why Nixon resigned.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had a chance to partially repair its damaged reputation after previously documented unethical legal conduct by Justices Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman and Prosser's own sleazy re-election campaign.
A unanimous decision by the court, simply restating the basic legal principle that no one—not even Walker and legislative Republicans—can violate our laws, would have demonstrated that any legitimate court places upholding the law above petty politics.
Except that this one isn't legitimate and it doesn't.
The predictable Republican majority—Prosser, Ziegler, Gableman and Pat Roggensack—voted in lockstep against requiring legislators to follow the law.
(Some analysts refer to this as a conservative majority on the court. It's not conservative. It's Republican. Conservatives actually believe in the rule of law.)
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, joined by Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks, pointed out just how historically devoid of facts and supporting case law the majority decision was.
“The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law,” Abrahamson wrote. “They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891.”
As embarrassing as the lack of legal content in the majority decision was, the circumstances surrounding its sudden release were just as embarrassing.
On a Monday, Republican Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald said if the Supreme Court did not rule by the next day, the Legislature would have to pass a law abolishing collective bargaining again, doing it legally.
Clearly, Republicans did not want to do that. When Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi enjoined the law with a court order because legislators had violated the state's open meetings law, she noted all Republicans had to do was meet again and pass it legally.
But with six Republican state senators facing recalls this summer for voting for the unpopular law, clearly many Republicans did not want to vote on it again.
Fitzgerald was publicly begging the Supreme Court to spare Republicans further political embarrassment. The next day, the Republican court majority obediently issued the hastily written opinion Fitzgerald requested endorsing Republican lawlessness.
The political game in Wisconsin is now officially fixed. By abandoning the rule of law, Republican Supreme Court justices have declared their own political party no longer has to obey the law.
*/?>
Joel, I know it must be very difficult for you to admit that your leftist democratic/ communist unions are losing their fight for control over our state government here in Wisconsin, and I feel your pain. Never the less you are entitled to your opinion and to support any cause you feel is legitimate, even a lost cause. But one thing that you have failed to include in your article describing the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Elected Officials of the State of Wisconsin from the Governor on down that you feel have in some way violated others Liberty or Constitutional rights by effectively ending collective bargaining - is the fact that Collective Bargaining was NEVER a Right - it was a " Gift " or " Payback " to the Unions from the Democratic Party for their financial support for the last 60 years and keeping them in office with huge contributions taken from the dues paid by the rank & file. This is just a more complex form of a " Kickback " All government employees are protected under both Federal & State labor Laws - the same labor laws that protect the rest of us here in Wisconsin that work for a living. Under collective bargaining, the taxpayers had to foot the entire bill for health benefits and retirement contributions for all of these Union members. That just wasn't right and anyone that thinks with their head knows that we all have to pitch in and share the burden in these economic hard times that we are going through. Under the Obama Administration we have seen a dramatic loss of jobs, increase in home foreclosures and a falling dollar. I have had to tighten my belt as well as every one else I know has had to cut back on spending in order to pay the higher gas prices, rising food prices and general price increases across the board for our every day items. Why should Union Members be " Exempt " from contributing more towards their own pension and benefits like the rest of us ? How can the Union justify trashing our Capitol Grounds in Madison ? How can the Democrats justify running away to Illinois like a bunch of spoiled brats that can't have their way ? Joel, As we all watched this unfold in Madison over several months I couldn't help but think to myself, what a bunch of losers ! They can't win playing by the rules so they bus in the professional protesters and make threats, call in the liberal drive by media to assist with the lies and propaganda, yet they still lost.... because the silent majority elected the best man to represent the people of the Great State of Wisconsin - and that would be Scott Walker - And Wisconsin is now going to be open again for business.
Hey 'anon', I'd love to see what happens to you in your non-union job if management changes and the new boss decides he doesn't like you. No reason, he just doesn't like your vibe. Maybe you remind him of his old roommate who sodomized while he was drunk back in college. Either way - you're fired. Those Federal and State Labor laws ain't gonna help you. Not one bit. You have no right to due process in the workplace. The only thing they can't do is fire you because of your race, sex or a disability. And how about working conditions? What's to say your new management decides that they pay too much to air condition your factory line in the summer? They think it's fine to work in 100 degree temps. The government wont help with that either.
You take for granted all that unions have brought to the workplace.
I've been fired because I probably gave the boss a bad vibe and I've fired people for the same reason. Thats life. We should be free to hire and fire just like the way we choose our friends. One time I had a job that was a 25 mile one way drive. They moved the offices to the other side of the city makeing it a 50 mile one way drive. Well I didn't go complaining to some union or file a lawsuit. I took that as an opportunitiy to give myself a promotion and move completely out of state, 700 miles away, and take a better position.
What is all this rhetoric about unions and collective bargaining? That was not the issue before the court. The issue was whether or not the legislature had to follow the open meetings law.
Chuck, is that what happend to you ? Did your room mate tale your " Liberties " ? This is exactly the point of this article, whining about losing
Enforcing the real problem, the disgust to the establishment at seeing these long-hairs, the hearing of Pink Floyd as opposed to Lawrence Welk or Johnny Cash, now that was what was to be stopped. It's like laws against "obscenity", you cannot define it, but "you know it when you see it". Alcohol was the "bright line rule" that could not be defended against in court. Didn't want to get on the ACLU's radar.
-------------------
Now, go back to our more recent supreme court races, all the talk about "tough on crime". Politically nobody can defend the debate on Tough versus Soft when we are talking about common street criminals, the ones who steal from an upstanding citizen of property or status. But, absolutely no real talk of tough against businesses who cheat, ignore regulations, evade taxes, pollute. Loophole Louie and Mautz Paint? No mention any more. The closest we got was Kloppenburg prosecuting an 80 year old farmer. Little was mentioned as to why, probably dairy cows pissing and defecating into our precious trout streams. Maybe he was the owner, and his sons were running the place, couldn't pass on his farm to his sons tax free until he kicked the bucket.
It's a pro-corporate goal to render the laws meaningless or choose not to enforce existing laws, particularly if the laws are meant to rein in those who unethically profit from unfair, unscrupulous business practices. Common crime is usually handled in the lower courts, rarely makes it to the top court. But, was this corporate goal written into the Tea Party platform? No, just the part about high taxes and high cost of "government programs", mentioning entitlements more than enforcing regulations created through the public democratic process. The Koch brothers were probably saying "if they kill the entitlements, stop collecting taxes, lets hope it leaves them too broke to enforce regulations".