# Wisconsin Supreme Court Lets Collective Bargaining Law Stand **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510 "2011-06-15T00:33:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/1 "2011-06-15T00:33:08Z")
Readers may recall [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=602138), 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. > [@Resolved: Wisconsin Republicans are subverting democratic processes](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wisconsin-republicans-are-subverting-democratic-processes/576039/58): > > **Bricker** , are you, a lawyer who practiced primarily in Virginia, saying that you can interpret the laws of Wisconsin more accurately than an actual Wisconsin judge? Yes. It now seems clear that I was: > [@Wisconsin Supreme Court](#): > > IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders and judgments of the Dane County Circuit Court in Case No. 2011CV1244 are vacated and declared to be void ab initio. 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. > [@Wisconsin Supreme Court](#): > > In Goodland v. Zimmerman, 243 Wis. 459, 10 N.W.2d 180 > (1943), the court focused on fundamental separation of powers > principles and addressed whether a court has the power to enjoin > publication of a bill duly enacted by the legislature. The > court first explained that “governmental powers are divided > among the three departments of government, the legislative, the > executive, and judicial.” Id. at 466-67. The court then > explained that the “judicial department has no jurisdiction or > right to interfere with the legislative process. That is > something committed by the constitution entirely to the > legislature itself.” Id. at 467. The court held that > “\*\*ecause under our system of constitutional government, no one > of the co-ordinate departments can interfere with the discharge > of the constitutional duties of one of the other departments, no > court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any > point.” Id. at 468. The court noted that “\*f a court can > intervene and prohibit the publication of an act, the court > determines what shall be law and not the legislature. If the > court does that, it does not in terms legislate but it invades > the constitutional power of the legislature to declare what > shall become law. This [a court] may not do.” Id. I was right in my analysis. Discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/2 "2011-06-15T00:40:16Z")
Continuing the WSC quote: > [@](#): > > the court addresses whether a court can enjoin > publication of a bill. The court does so because whether a > court can enjoin a bill is a matter of great public importance > and also because it appears necessary to confirm that Goodland > remains the law that all courts must follow. State v. Cramer, > 98 Wis. 2d 416, 420, 296 N.W.2d 921 (1980) (noting that we > consider questions that have become moot “where the question is > one of great public importance . . . or of public interest,” or > “where the problem is likely to recur and is of sufficient > importance to warrant a holding which will guide trial courts in > similar circumstances”). Accordingly, because the circuit court > did not follow the court’s directive in Goodland, it exceeded > its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional > powers under Article IV, Section 1 and Section 17 of the > Wisconsin Constitution, and erred in enjoining the publication > and further implementation of the Act. Goodland is still good law, and it controls the outcome of this case. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/3 "2011-06-15T00:42:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/4 "2011-06-15T00:48:15Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/5 "2011-06-15T00:59:06Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/6 "2011-06-15T01:12:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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: > [@Resolved: Wisconsin Republicans are subverting democratic processes](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wisconsin-republicans-are-subverting-democratic-processes/576039/31): > > 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. > [@Resolved: Wisconsin Republicans are subverting democratic processes](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-wisconsin-republicans-are-subverting-democratic-processes/576039/33): > > 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): > > > [@](#): > > > > (2) No provision of this subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule. Now comes the Wisconsin Supreme Court. What do they say about the issue? > [@Wisconsin SC](#): > > It is undisputed that the legislature > posted notices of the March 9, 2011 meeting of the joint > committee on conference on three bulletin boards, approximately > 1 hour and 50 minutes before the start of the meeting. In the > posting of notice that was done, **the legislature relied on its > interpretation of its own rules of proceeding.** (Emphasis added). Prosser concurrence quotes the exact law I did: > [@Prosser's concurrence](#): > > Subsection (2) provides: “No provision of this > subchapter which conflicts with a rule of the senate or assembly > or joint rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting > conducted in compliance with such rule.” Wis. Stat. § 19.87(2). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/7 "2011-06-15T01:17:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then, when the issue is conclusively decided against you, don’t admit error; claim instead that the other side is gloating. 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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/8 "2011-06-15T01:26:30Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > 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. 😃 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. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/9 "2011-06-15T01:38:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/10 "2011-06-15T02:10:47Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > …people will just point to the innate wrongness of the Republican action even if it is demonstrated as being perfectly legal… 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? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/11 "2011-06-15T02:24:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/12 "2011-06-15T02:32:05Z")
I swear, only tighty righties could have a group-gloat and a pity party all at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/13 "2011-06-15T02:40:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/14 "2011-06-15T02:52:13Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Nevertheless, I shall not support your nomination to the Supreme Court. 😃 Once again, The Man keeps me down. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/15 "2011-06-15T02:54:41Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > (Although “I was absolutely right - Discuss” is a bit much, no?) Yes. Which is why instead I just said: > [@Bricker](#): > > I was right in my analysis. > > Discuss. That doesn’t seem “much” at all, does it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/16 "2011-06-15T02:57:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Yeah, pretty much. The innate wrongess is what its about with us. 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. > [@](#): > > And **Bricker**? You going to ask one of the Luminous Ones to change the thread title, or just brazen it out? Hmmm. Probably should say “…Collective Bargaining LAW Stand…” or “…Collective Bargaining Restrictions Stand..” Yes. Mods, I’d surely appreciate a title change…? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/17 "2011-06-15T03:05:57Z")
Howzabout “Ruling Class Jackals Legalize Crushing Working Class Solidarity, Huzzah!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/18 "2011-06-15T03:17:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/19 "2011-06-15T04:13:44Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510/20 "2011-06-15T04:32:03Z")
**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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wisconsin-supreme-court-lets-collective-bargaining-law-stand/585510.md?page=2)