Did you read Simplicio’s post? “Presumably the law they were breaking was also passed by a democratic process, and hence breaking it is undemocratic” - that’s a claim that breaking any law is undemocratic.
The difference, I think, is that speeding or murder or crimes being committed by individuals while in this case the law (or Senate rule in this case, IIRC) is being broken by a part of the government. Democracy obviously works even if people don’t obey its laws, but its difficult to see how it works if the government itself doesn’t obey them. The idea that the government itself is bound by the courts is a princple important in democratic governments, even if its not really essential to the word “democracy”. Another example here
The Patriot act was passed by the democratic process. So its obvious neither the Judge or attorneny mean undemocratic in that sense. Rather they’re arguing that it breaks with other principles that are important for democracies to work, even if they don’t really have much to do with “one man-one vote” concept.
But in anycase, I’m not sure its worth it to put a ton of energy into a semantic argument. You and the OP seem to agree on what actually happened, what label you want to stick on it isn’t really important.
They’re not being accused of breaking any old law. They’re being a accused of breaking a law that defines part of the democratic process in the state of Wisconsin (open meetings law).
Surely you agree that breaking such a law can be considered subverting the democratic process.
I am not Simplico. I am the OP that you are arguing against. You began arguing against the term “democratic” before Simplico had even posted in the thread. Your arguments are as faulty as your memory of how and when events unfolded in this thread.
I have shown you that you are in error re: what democratic means. Will you acknowledge this and move forward, or will you continue to make the same failed argument?
Wow, it’s almost like the lefty argument is, the bar for undemocratic is only someone doing something illegal? Really, the standard is that low for the left? An ant could step over that bar.
If you asked your standard Wisconsin-er who was subverting the process, the Gov and his violation of the sunshine law (temporarily… until he simply gets it passed again), or the Democratic cowards who flew the state, I’m pretty sure they’d say the latter.
One poll from February said 67% disapproved of that outrageous tactic, while only 25% approved.
The argument is that the actions of the WI republicans which include violating laws that define the democratic process are subverting the democratic process.
The actions of the WI democrats are not the subject of this thread.
Well since you feel like dragging unrelated agencies to the debate I’d just like to point Righties like to subvert the economy (cite: disastrous banking deregulation the retards pushed that caused the current recession. How many Americans ended up out of a job and on the street thanks to Rightie incompetence?)
Further righties are either delusional paranoids or lying traitors (cite: the Iraqi war, thousands of American soldiers killed over delusional (probably lying) Rightie jackass’s claims of WMD, a trillion dollars wasted hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed thanks to murderous rightie lies or grave incompetence)
So in short Righties have demonstrated they are either pro-incompetence or pro-treason.
Also given their reactionary agenda against the Bill of Rights (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Search and Seizure, Due Process, Cruel and Unusual Punishment) (cite (in order of claim): Rightie censorship demands, Rightie demands of shoving religion down the public’s throat in school, court, etc., Patriot(traitor) Act which included indefinite detention, and warrentless snooping, finally see below)
Finally Righties had an innocent man tortured than then the limp dick chickenshit traitors cowardly refused him his day in court. He is not alone among the victims of how brutal and savage Rightie degeneracy is.
Apparently the spineless weasels thought it’d look bad. Righties want to leave the uninsured to die in the streets, the poor to die of starvation and exposure. Particularly the poor whom are victims of their treasoniously incompetent banking deregulation.
In short righties, judging by their actions wish nothing but suffering on the world. Truely the victims of parents who incompetently failed to install basic values such as the golden rule in them, leaving their actions indistinguishable form sociopathy and treason.
ETA: Righties hate gays because they’re small minded delusional jackasses who wish to persecute people for who they were born as.
…all of which is beside the point of the OP, Tao’s.
Mr Smashy’s tu quoqoe was pretty transparent, and I’d really like to keep this thread on topic.
OK.
And neother did the Republicans break any laws, or disobey a judicial directive.
Judge Sumi ordered that the Wisconsin Secretary of State is restrained and enjoined from such publication [of the new law] until further order of this court." Secretary LaFollette has complied with that order.
And appropriately enough, since he had no responsibility to publish the law. In Wisconsin, the Legislative Reference Bureau was obligated to publish the law.
Sec. 14.38(10) provides that the Secretary shall provide to the legislative reference bureau of the act number and date of an enactment, and the designated date of publication of the act under s. 35.095. Secretary LaFollette did that, specifying the date of March 25, 2011. He had to provide that date (or an earlier one) because the law compels him to: Sec. 35.095(3)(b) says “…[t]he secretary of state shall designate a date of publication for each act and every portion of an act which is enacted by the legislature over the governor’s partial veto. The date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment.”
So the Secretary doesn’t publish it. The LRB publishes it.
As for the idea that it’s not “official” until it’s published by a newspaper? I don’t think so: Sec. 991.11 says:
The publication in the state newspaper of record is required ten days AFTER the “date of the publication.”
So “publication” in 991.11 refers to the LRB publication, not the newspaper publication. The newspaper “publication” is ten days after the LRB publication, and it’s the LRB publication which causes it to take effect.
District Attorney Ozanne should have sued the LRB. He didn’t.
Now, does this “subvert the democratic process?” Arguably, yes.
But as I said when I supported the appropriateness of the Democratic walkout:
[quote]
This, too, is a perfectly legitimate tactic. If the OP is arguing that even though the Democratic lawmakers frustrated the legislative process by walking out, the Republicans should have bent over backwards to ensure an even-handed process, I disagree.
I said at the time that the Dems were perfectly justified in using the rules of the house to deny the Republicans a quorum. Now, by the same type of manuvering to the letter of the law, the Republicans are perfectly right to take advantage of an error on the part of the Democrats (and the judge!) on who to enjoin to prevent the law’s publication.
Thank for your extremely long and detailed post, Bricker. Tell me, if you would, how this doesn’t fall afoul of the judge’s order to “refrain and enjoin from further implementation”?
Legalistic sophistry. No sale, counselor. The denial of quorum manuever was perfectly legitimate, just as you say. Passing this bill without the proper procedures followed isn’t kosher, and the proper procedures were not followed, as you well know. You are comparing a legal and legitimate manuever with an illegal one, and finding them equal. Nope.
Who is instructed or obliged to publish what has no real bearing on the matter, the correct legislative procedure was not followed, and the law is not a law, If it were published in the LRB or published in *Mother Jones *makes no difference, the procedure after the fact is of no consequence, it doesn’t change the facts of the passage of the law, which was bogus.
You are comparing apples and orangutans.
The judge directed that order at the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State hasn’t done anything that would violate that order.
The judge didn’t order the Legislative Reference Bureau to do, or refrain from doing, anything.
That’s not true. The proper procedures WERE followed. The Wisconsin open meetings law provides an exception for house and senate meetings – as long as they are conducted in accord with the rules of the house (or senate) the open meetings law does not apply. § 19.87(2):
The order I read from Judge Sumi was:
That order would seem to encompass everyone, not just the Secretary of State.
No, for two reasons.
First, the order explicitly reaches only the Secretary:
Secondly, a court cannot generally order anyone who is not before it to do anything. The case here was “State of Wisconsin ex rel Ismael R. Ozanne v. Jeff Fitzgerald, Scott Fitzgerald, Michael Ellis, Scott Suder, and Douglas LaFollete.” The court can’t order anyone else to do anything without serving them notice and giving them an opportunity to respond. (See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2) for an example of the notice requirement rule).
Douglas LaFollette is the Wsiconsin Secretary of State. Jeff and Scott Fitzgerald are, respectively, Wisconsin assembly and senate chairmen. Scott Suder is an assemblyman. None of them have anything to do with the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Before a court has the power to order anyone to act (or not act) in a particular way, the general rule is that the person or entity must be given notice and the opportunity to respond. Orders that flout this principle are called ex parte orders, and are very limited in nature and duration.
In this case, the District Attorney (Ozanne) made a mistake, failing to include the LRB as a defendant. As a result, the court didn’t order it to do anything. And even if it the order were read as enjoining the LRB ex parte – they had no notice. That is, no one delivered the court’s order to them… another problem with ex parte orders. They weren’t a party to the case, and so they don’t get notified as to the existence of any orders.
It’s my understanding that this was a Temporary Restraining Order, pending further hearing and review, with a date given for said hearing. Surely that falls under the ex parte order description you just gave, and thus, I would think, would preclude anyone, named in the suit or not, from doing anything to further implementation of this law.
No, it doesn’t. Even if the court intended to enjoin a non-party from acting, the court must name the party and provide it ex ante notice… meaning that the court must communicate to the party after the fact that it’s the subject of an order. If it doesn’t, how is the party supposed to know of the existence of the order?
I’ll give you an example. One category of court orders that are often ex parte are no-contact orders in stalking or domestic abuse cases. The abusive partner often won’t be available to accept service of process, and so the abused partner asks the court to grant a temporary no-contact restraining order. The court will do so, even though the abusive partner hasn’t been notified.
But when that happens, the absuive partner can’t be charged with violating that court order. You see how that works, yes? I mean, if he hasn’t been told of it, he can’t be charged with violating it. The order does allow the abuser to be detained if he violates the order, but only for the purpose of serving the notice on him.
Same thing here. The LRB had no notice to not act. They can’t be charged with violating the court’s order because they were never served with the court’s order.
And the court cannot order the entire universe not to do something. Even if it’s ex parte, the court must identify the particular persons or entities its order applies to.
Is that a Wisconsin thing?
I addressed that claim above:
Oh…
Is that a Wisconsin thing?