Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It ain't over yet, so don't crow too loudly about Republicans breaking the law. You oughtta be criticizing Democrats who didn't stick around for the fight anyway.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't crowing. Just announcing..

But, you point out the problem.. It would have been SOOO easy for the Republicans to pass the law LEGALLY since they did it in the middle of the night AFTER the Democrats returned... All they had to do was announce the meeting ACCORDING to law... They didn't. Stupid Republicans.

Now, they're going to have a doover with all the incumbent embarrassment... T's cool with me.

By the way, the Democrats DID their job. Because of what they did, the stupid Republicans are going to LOSE their jobs, and the Democrats are going to retake the Senate. That looks exactly like their job TO ME.

excon

Their JOB is to represent the people of Wisconsin, not get rid of the other guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Their JOB is to represent the people of Wisconsin, not get rid of the other guy.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Getting rid of the OTHER guy IS their job, and absolutely serves the interests of the people. You want to define their jobs, YET you can't produce a POLICY or a LAW, or an EMPLOYMENT MANUAL that says that's what their job is. You're making it up. You WISH that wasn't their job, but it IS, my friend, it truly IS.

excon

Lol here is a Judge who with any integrity would've recused herself .

Quote:

---

SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities. (1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary...
(2) A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge may not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

---

http://www.wicourts.gov/about/commit...pdf&seqNo=1070


Maryann Sumi 's son is a political operative who is a former lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and data manager for the SEIU State Council.He runs a company called runs a company called 'Left Field Strategies'.

Her decision is a temporary set back. It is also comical for the reason Steve pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Getting rid of the OTHER guy IS

---

A representative's job is to represent the people. Wisconsin's constitution also allows for the legislative bodies to compel the attendance of missing members, which they did. They had a week to return and do their jobs before the bill was passed without them, so don't tell me those Wisconsin Democrats did their job.

If what Wisconsin democrats did was against the law, then why haven't the repubs used the law to punish them? Well they tried, but the ones to get punished under the LAW so far are 3 of the repubs who did their job! 6 more are under review, 3 dems, and 3 more repubs.

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/...xt|FRONTPAGE|p

Wonder how that happened?

More on Judge Sumi...
It's an all in the family deal . Her hubby is Carl Sinderbrand, an environmental lawyer, who made a name for himself earlier in this story for his contributions to JoAnne Kloppenburg .

Wonder why Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself when a case before the court involved his wife's employer??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If what Wisconsin democrats did was against the law, then why haven't the repubs used the law to punish them?

---

I said nothing about them breaking the law, Ex said Republicans broke the law by not being transparent. I said it couldn't have been more transparent and that Democrats didn't do their job and that the law allows their legislature to compel them to attend (and punish them according to their rules).

Quote:

---

Article IV, §7
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.

---

They were compelled to return and didn't until a week later after the Senate passed the bill. How does this all equal Republicans broke the law?

You mean the Open Meeting Law? All they had to do was post the proper notice and vote again. So they broke the law.

Now breaking the public trust is a more serious offense for which there are lawful remedies for.

How did they violate the Open Meeting Law? The law states "all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.”

Was it closed to the public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

How did they violate the Open Meeting Law?

---

Hello again, Steve:

It needs to be announced a certain amount of time ahead... They didn't do that. It WAS real simple, if you have a mind to OBEY the law... If you want to CRAM the bill down the throats of your constituents, you CHEAT, and BREAK the law like the Republicans DID.

You don't think we're making this up, do you?

excon

3. Time of notice
The provision in Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3) requires that every public notice of a meeting be given at least
Twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting, unless “for good cause” such notice is “impossible or impractical.”
If “good cause” exists, the notice should be given as soon as possible and must be given at least two hours in
Advance of the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.84(3).
-

When did they announce it? The whole world knew this was coming, the Fleebaggers left the state AFTER being compelled to attend to intentionally obstruct passage. They had a fricking month's notice.

Even this judge noted they gad given the 2 hours notice provided for in § 19.84(3) cited by Talaniman.

Quote:

---

Sumi, appointed to the bench by former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, earlier had put the law on hold, finding that legislators provided two hours' advance notice of the meeting, instead of the 24 hours required by state law.

---

You just cited their justification, Tal. Maybe you should send that section to the judge and LA Times.

P.S. I'm not making this stuff up, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

When did they announce it? The whole world knew this was coming.... They had a fricking month's notice.

---

Hello Steve:

Yeah, that pesky law... Sure they KNEW it was coming... But, they have to say the WORDS. It's like a trial. They have to say the word GUILTY before they can lead the defendant away in chains... That's the LAW. I didn't make it up.

You'd think the party of LAW & ORDER would KNOW that - but you'd be WRONG.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Yeah, that pesky law... Sure they KNEW it was coming... But, they have to say the WORDS. It's like a trial. They have to say the word GUILTY before they can lead the defendant away in chains... That's the LAW. I didn't make it up.

You'd think the party of LAW & ORDER would KNOW that - but you'd be WRONG.

---

Dude, Tal cited the law on 2 hours notice which the judge said was given. Seems pretty simple to me, they didn't violate the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Seems pretty simple to me, they didn't violate the law.

---

Hello Dude:

If so, then the reversal will be reversed. Tom gave plenty of reasons it should be... But, of course, if they judge the law, on the LAW instead of the judge who reversed it, they probably WON'T reverse it.

I don't know. But, it seems clear that there IS a question of whether proper notice was given. I wasn't there. You weren't either. However, if you've seen the video tape, you'll SEE that the Republicans were WARNED that they were violating the law at the VERY moment they were doing it. Clearly, if they WANTED to avoid this controversy, that they ABSOLUTELY had to KNOW was coming, they COULD have stopped, considered their actions, and gone BACK to make ABSOLUTELY certain that all their I's were dotted and their T's were crossed...

They DIDN'T. They forged ahead. Now, they're paying the price. It may COST 'em - specially since it was SO EASY to do it legally. Stupid Republicans...

excon

I knew I should have copied and pasted the whole law, that in addition to a 2 hour notice, it has to be put in a place that everyone can see it. The bulletin board of the senate chamber, doesn't count. Word of mouth doesn't count. You actually have to publish it where the public can see it.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/...ance_Guide.pdf

As you see they started the clock before they informed the public. It goes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court next. Or they could simply bypass all that by giving proper notice, and voting again. Hmmm, why didn't they just do that and be done with it? That could have been done the next day, and made the injunction non existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Hmmm, why didn't they just do that and be done with it??

---

Hello again, tal:

Because they thought they had a mandate. Because they got caught up in the rightness of their cause. Because they believed their own press. Because they got heady with power. Because they became arrogant. Because they didn't read the law. Because they thought the law didn't matter. Because they FORGOT to read the law. Because they don't know how to read.

Take you're pick.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I knew I should have copied and pasted the whole law, that in addition to a 2 hour notice, it has to be put in a place that everyone can see it.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/...ance_Guide.pdf

---

Yes, I saw that compliance guide yesterday. That's not the law, that's the AG's opinion.

Quote:

---

As you see they started the clock before they informed the public.

---

I don't see that, where do I see that?