Resolved: Wisconsin Republicans are subverting democratic processes

[E-Sabbath]

Is that the same guy who is referred to in Shepardizing? (checks) Yep, it is. I know a few things, Bricker. I’m grateful for your patience, here, because I know that I know a few things, and the things I know may not fully add up here and there.

And I was not dismissing the argument. I was poking at a hole I seem to have found, and asking why it was or was not so. Now, if you’ll give me a little patience, I seem to recall the judge’s last order saying that it was not published. Lemme go check.
http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/March11/0331/0331sumi.pdf

FURTHER, based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received at the March 29, 2011 evidentiary heaving, It is hereby DECLARED that 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. §§ 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.

Now, how can she do that?

Further, I don’t think this guy is referring to Goodland at all.
http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=231799
He’s just saying he wasn’t a party, so ha ha ha, screw you Judge. Which is a much simpler statement.

Wait, no. Here’s the one I was looking for.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118839999.html

“There is applicable Supreme Court precedent that a court has no authority to enjoin the publication of a law,” he said. “The state has repeatedly cited that law to her and as far as I know she has not only failed to explain herself about why she feels she has the authority, she hasn’t even acknowledged there is an issue. That just leaves me speechless.”

Esenberg was referring to a 1943 state Supreme Court opinion that said courts could not interfere with legislation until it is published and becomes law.

There’s the Goodland reference. Good eye, Bricker.

Okay. So the .pdf link, is the one that seems to be holding, and will be in place for about two months. So how can she do that, if Goodland is in force?