Wisconsin Supreme Court Lets Collective Bargaining Law Stand

Readers may recall this thread, which contained an extensive back-and-forth between me and several other posters on the legality of the Wisconsin judge’s orders enjoining the publication and effect of the collective bargaining law.

Yes. It now seems clear that I was:

In that thread, I brought up Goodland v. Zimmerman, a 1943 case that supported the points I was making. At least one poster (E-Sabbath) seemed to believe that the case was no longer good law, although no one ever brought up any case that overturned it, and despite the fact that Judge Sumi never so much as mentioned it in her reasoning, suggesting that she either didn’t know it, or knew it and found it inconvenient.

I was right in my analysis.

Discuss.

Continuing the WSC quote:

Goodland is still good law, and it controls the outcome of this case.

You were technically correct, but obviously the Wisconsin GOP (perhaps the entire GOP) basically manufactured the budget crisis when there was not really one at all in order to strike at unions.

That’s probably the official leftist party line.

My personal opinion is that Wisconsin’s situation was quite bad and their policies in regard to compensation and benefits of public employees unsustainable in the long term. I will not deny that in the immediate sense the deficit being what it was there was a creation of the governor’s fiscal policy.

From a strategic perspective I think Walker should have taken the concession on pension and health care which the public workers were willing to give, and then at a later date clipped their bargaining rights. Many states have significantly curtailed public employee bargaining rights generally to the betterment of the public at large.

My only positions in that thread had to do with the reasoning and legality of Judge Sumi’s order to enjoin publication of the law (and thus presumably enjoin the law’s existence).

I had no position on the underlying wisdom of creating the law in the first place.

I’m sorry, you want Gloating, Crowing, and Lording It Over, which is down the hall. This is Great Debates. Room 15? Yes, that’s right, third door on your left. Thank you, sir, and “neener neener” to you as well…

This is your tactic: Insist loudly you’re right, even in the face of reasoning to the contrary.

Then, when the issue is conclusively decided against you, don’t admit error; claim instead that the other side is gloating.

Let’s look back at what you were saying then:

Now comes the Wisconsin Supreme Court. What do they say about the issue?

(Emphasis added).

Prosser concurrence quotes the exact law I did:

This is not gloating. This is the correction of absolutely wrong crap that was offered up in the previous thread as fact by you.

And I see you have no interest in acknowledging that you might have been a tad mistaken, even now.

Actually, you are gloating. Thing is, you are absolutely deserving of it. You nailed it.

Nevertheless, I shall not support your nomination to the Supreme Court. :smiley:

Ditto in all respects. Bricker was absolutely correct in analyzing what the current Supreme Court of Wisconsin would do. He is absolutely gloating - who wouldn’t? (Although “I was absolutely right - Discuss” is a bit much, no?) And Scott Walker is still an asshole.

Right, but experience suggests in cases like this people will just point to the innate wrongness of the Republican action even if it is demonstrated as being perfectly legal. Once the legal issue is settled the legal facts of it will no longer be interesting to those who are against the GOP in general.

Yeah, pretty much. The innate wrongess is what its about with us. That something so wrong can be rendered legal only makes it more offensive.

And Bricker? You going to ask one of the Luminous Ones to change the thread title, or just brazen it out?

Yes, and I’ve seen this tactic used against you on more than one occasion, by others. It’s getting to be amateur night around here.

I swear, only tighty righties could have a group-gloat and a pity party all at the same time.

Who’s a “tighty-righty?” The Obama-supporting social liberal who hasn’t voted Republican since Reagan was in office?

Once again, The Man keeps me down.

Yes.

Which is why instead I just said:

That doesn’t seem “much” at all, does it?

Well, I said that it was legal, and took no position on its rightness. If you had said back then, “Yes, it’s legal, but it’s just plain wrong,” we’d have had no beef.

Instead, you insisted (in the face of the plain text of the law) that there was illegality afoot.

THAT was incorrect.

Hmmm. Probably should say “…Collective Bargaining LAW Stand…” or “…Collective Bargaining Restrictions Stand…”

Yes. Mods, I’d surely appreciate a title change…?

Howzabout “Ruling Class Jackals Legalize Crushing Working Class Solidarity, Huzzah!”

How about, “elucidator refuses to admit error; deflects and changes subject?”

When the legislature passes a law, the Wisconsin courts cannot stop it from going into effect by ordering that it not be published, despite your earlier claim that they could.

And the Wisconsin open meetings law doesn’t apply to meetings of the legislature as long as the legislature follows its own internal rules, despite your earlier claim that it does apply.

You made both those claims. Are you now saying you chose those positions simply because they let you reach the end result you wanted – the result in which the ruling class jackals lose?

Are you really determined to take this seriously? Because so far, I’m playing with the silly angle, figuring you’d catch on pretty quick. As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I’m surprised how badly you need this.

But OK, if you insist. Let me get my sombre glasses on. So, a court majority composed of persons who share your ideological bent has decided that you were right. By a vote of four to three, yes? If Judge Prosser had failed in his re-election bid, what is your confidence that the vote would have been the same? If that had been the case, you would have rushed here to open a thread of blubbering apologies to me, et. al.? Forgive my skepticism.

And what is so definitive about this ruling? The lower court judge thought the case should be decided differently, and did so. Was this judge somehow entirely incompetent, utterly incapable of dealilng with the bleeding obvious? Or is there some reasonable ground for difference?

So, four lawyers of the same party stood up and declared something their party had done to be kosher. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Or am I supposed to be impressed by your prescience regarding an entirely predictable conclusion?

Bricker:

You really cannot see the political angle here?

To be fair the “political angle” can be levied at the left leaning judges as well as the right leaning ones.

Question to you is were the dissenting judges full of shit and completely wrong and politically motivated while the majority applied the law reasonably and rationally with no regard to party affiliation?