Doh.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
Doh.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ah, so one bartender is offering shots for signatures. Darn him. Next thing you know he'll be busing in people to terrorize unsuspecting Democrats and pacing in front of the polling place with a club in his hand.
I wonder if Eric Holder would prosecute that voter intimidation??Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No need to bus anyone. The Dem's, and Repubs are working to get rid of REPUBLICANS.
House votes to restrict unions - Boston.com
Will the State House in Massachusetts be occupied ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That, or they'll throw the bums out next time.
excon
Nahh I think since the Dems. Are doing the dirty deed they'll swallow it.
The difference between Wisconsin, and Massachusetts, is Mass is still talking and negotiating, heated, but still in the process. That's the difference between Dem's and Repubs. Repubs dictate, Dem's negotiate.Its a process.
A fellatio joke? Do you guys sink any lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They voted already in the Mass. Legislature ;awaiting a Senate vote... the absolute same point that the protests began in Wisconsin .
I see the hypocrisy here is NY too. Cuomo is being tough and the unions are not rising up.
You mean a process like Obama care that was rammed through WITHOUT a house vote? To keep the minority party from having ANY input at all? But THAT was acceptable?
Hello again,
Well, since the Republicans KNOW they're going to lose their majority in the recalls coming up, they're RAMMING their right wing agenda down our throats, BEFORE they get thrown out on their a$$'s.
The bastards. In a rapid sequence of votes over the next eight weeks, they plan to legalize concealed weapons, deregulate the telephone industry, require voters to show photo identification at the polls, expand school vouchers and undo an early release for prisoners.
I don't know what happened to the jobs thing... I guess they were lying.
excon
They have jobs, why should they care if you don't? You know a better way to keep your kids from competing for the jobs of the future than keep adults from affording ANY education, and build more jails for YOUR kids?
I don't. Will it work? They are going to try their best that's for sure! Will it stick? I seriously doubt it!
Hello again, Tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It's much harder to get a law repealed, than it is to stop it from being passed in the first place... The Republicans are doing this all over the place... Florida passed a law to have ANYONE who applies for public help MUST take a drug test and PAY for it. You know, real crazy right wing stuff...
What's happening to our country.. I just heard an amazing thought... It seems there's a general consensus around Washington from BOTH parties, that the Republicans are going to take over the Senate in 2012. Can you believe that??
excon
I don't know... in Wiscosin they tried to save jobs. Here in NY the Mayor isn't asking the public unions for give backs... he's just firing them..
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That's the point, its about agenda, NOT jobs. Power, and money, and getting more of it. Its an old story, and still playing. Some never get enough, and don't circulate it, and we all suffer. So much for that trickle down stuff.
Nothing wrong with keeping drug addicts... and drunks off the public coffers. And criminals out of public housing.
Hello again,
Wisconsin judge strikes down Walkers union busting law. I don't know WHY those law and order Republicans can't seem to follow the law. It's a simple open meetings law. It means you have to be transparent and let people know what you're going to do.. Instead, the Republicans, thought they could sneak the law into being... Stupid Republicans.
excon
Geez, this was the most talked about law of the year. The Wisconsin legislature was overflowing with protesting visitors. How in the heck can some judge say it wasn't transparent, because Democrats refused to stay and do their job?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Btw, that was just one circuit court judge's opinion. 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:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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 .
http://www.wicourts.gov/about/commit...pdf&seqNo=1070Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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??
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:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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?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.
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?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
You just cited their justification, Tal. Maybe you should send that section to the judge and LA Times.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.
P.S. I'm not making this stuff up, either.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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 excon
Hello Dude:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Hello again, tal:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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
Yes, I saw that compliance guide yesterday. That's not the law, that's the AG's opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't see that, where do I see that?Quote:
As you see they started the clock before they informed the public.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM. |