First it was the closed door meeting to seperate the collective bargaining issue from the budget process (which put paid to the lie that it was a “fiscally necessary” item at all), now they have done an end-around on a restraining order, with some saying that it means the anti-union measure is now law.
[
Wisconsin Republicans are subverting the democratic process and the judiciary.
It’s not law until it’s published in a newspaper, which can’t be done while the restraining order is in place. And since there’s going to be a hearing on Tuesday to determine whether the bill was passed properly or not, that court can either choose to extend the restraining order or continue it. I mean, Wisconsin legislative leaders can say whatever they want, but that doesn’t change the situation.
And packing up and leaving so the democratically elected state government can’t get anything done is not subverting the democratic process?
Maybe the republicans are wrong… but the democrats don’t really have any moral high ground to stand on either IMO.
That, I think, is what they call a tu quoqoe.
Did the Democrats break any laws?
Are they accused of breaking any laws?
Did they disobey a judicial directive?
Your attempt at equivalence is false, and has no bearing on whether or not Wisconsin Republicans are subverting democratic (and judicial) processes.
I don’t think the state did disobey a judicial directive. The operative part of the restraining order says:
And that didn’t happen. The Sec. of State didn’t publish the law, as the article says.
The Legislative Reference Bureau is a legal library, sort of Wisconsin’s version of the Library of Congress. It’s not part of the process regarding how laws become effective, and the publication of the law on its website doesn’t mean the law becomes active.
The argument coming from the Fitzgeralds seems to be that the law has been published, and therefore goes into effect. Which still goes against the the part of the order, “I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.”
So, your argument, then, is that the Republicans only *tried *to subvert democratic and judicial process and that they only *think *they have accomplished this?
My argument is that the Legislative Reference Bureau, which is non-partisan and not under Republican control, put the law on their website, and now the Republicans are using the fact that they did so as some sort of propaganda victory, but their doing so doesn’t change the status of the law.
“Strategy”
“Tit-for-tat”
“Propaganda”
“Maneuver”
Anyone else remember back when saying something was true when you most likely knew it wasn’t true was called “lying”?
I appreciate your clarification, thank you.
As to the OP, I couldn’t add anything that hasn’t been addressed in recent threads, but certainly this new stuff, in addition to the various other maneuvers and strategies and damn lies, supports the OP’s resolution that the WI Republican leadership is subverting the democratic process here in WI.
I thinking there’s a confusion about what the word democratic means.
Are the Republicans doing things which are wrong or foolish or unjust or illegal or immoral? Maybe. But undemocratic? The state of Wisconsin had an election in 2010; the Republicans won 60 out of 99 seats in the Assembly and 19 out of 33 seats in the Senate. So you might not like the results but it is democratic.
Nonsense. If the elected officials are engaging in behavior which is unjust and illegal, (which many people are contending, including myself), then they are subverting the democratic process.
Although they have been duly elected to represent their constituents in Wisconsin, none of them were given license to break the law, skirt legislative rules, and attempt to defy court orders (the issue raised in the OP as well as those regarding closing off the capitol building to the public, for example).
The Republican leadership in WI is putting forth a concerted effort to subvert the democratic process.
Nonsense indeed. If five criminals get together and decide by a 3-2 vote to rob a bank, then it was a democratic process. That doesn’t make it legal or moral. Democracy just means they voted on it and the majority decided.
True as far as it goes, but that isn’t far enough. A respectful participant in the democratic process is required to operate under certain restraints which respect the process. Most importantly, you are not allowed to use the machinery of law to stack the electoral deck in your favor.
The Pubbies are on a nationwide campaign to do precisely that. They know new and younger voters are disproportionately liberal, and this presents them with an electoral weakness. So they pump up allegations of voter fraud so they can solve the dreadful crisis of voter fraud by means that make it less likely that a new voter can or will vote.
Unions represent one of the few dependable Dem bastions, and they are somewhat effective in “get out the vote” efforts and campaign contributions. So, what to do? Well, cook up a budget crisis by cutting revenue by cutting taxes, and then blame the unions. Use legislative power to undercut your political opponents. Do you doubt for a moment that if they could have gotten away with banning unions altogether, they would have?
Witness the public murder of ACORN. Stampeding legislatures both state and Federal with utterly bogus charges of child prostitution, they effectively destroyed ACORN. Charges that were without any merit whatsoever, but that didn’t slow them down. When the charges were proven false, did you hear any of them apologize? They had been trying for years to kill ACORN, the whole Federal attorney scandal has its roots in that effort, because some Republicans have enough integrity not to lend themselves to such a corrupt effort.
They didn’t kill ACORN because it was corrupt, the killed ACORN because it was effective.
Then there is the question of deception. Did Walker, at any time during his campaign, say “I’m going to crush union power in this state”? No, because he would have lost if he did. Now, perhaps if he had, your point about democracy would have merit. But you cannot fairly claim legitimacy for your program from an election fraudulently conducted.
That’s not relying on democracy, that’s gaming the system in order to obtain and preserve power you have no legitimate right to.
With the exception of redistricting.
When we do it, its “redistricting”. When they do it, its “gerrymandering”. They should stop doing it.
Come on. Getting elected doesn’t give one carte blanche to do whatever one wants and say that it’s not subverting the democratic process. Nixon was duly elected in 1968. Was he not subverting the democratic process with Watergate?
Well, if what they’re doing is illegal, then presumably the law they were breaking was also passed by a democratic process, and hence breaking it is undemocratic. In anycase, the OPs use of “democratic” to mean obeying the rule of law is pretty common.
As to the Wisconsin GOP, I can’t really see how they think they’re helping their case with this. Its not like they really loose anything waiting a few weeks for the law to go into effect, and as Captain Amazing points out, this move doesn’t really make it go into effect sooner in anycase. The end result is it just makes an unpopular law look more sketchy to the public.
Watergate was undemocratic - not because it was illegal (although it was) but because it was an attempt to improperly influence the outcome of an election.
I disagree. I don’t see the word undemocratic being used as a synonym for illegal. If somebody gets caught speeding or committing murder, nobody would claim they were being undemocratic.
It isn’t being used as a synonym for illegal. It’s being used in the way it’s defined:
[
](Democratic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
Neither speeding nor murder are, in and of themselves, anything to do with the nature of a democracy.