Wisconsin Supreme Court Lets Collective Bargaining Law Stand

[Bricker]

@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:

@elucidator

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.

@Bricker

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.