Not one of the three dissenters actually identified any rationale for why Goodland didn’t apply.
Read their opinions yourself to avoid my bias, but my summary of each of their dissents is: (a) the Court shouldn’t take up the issue now, but wait to address it after the ordinary course of appeals; (b) the issue of openness is of such great importance that when we do finally consider this case when it comes to us via appellate jurisdiction, we should override contrary past cases and make new law.
Sure, there was a split on party lines. But the dissenters would have reached the conclusion they wanted by overruling Goodland. No question that was in their power to do. But when we were discussing the case, no one (that I recall) said, “Wisconsin should change its law.”
Everyone’s argument was that the action was illegal under current Wisconsin law. And that wasn’t true, and even the dissenters tacitly acknowledge that. The dissenters would change the law to correct what they see as a grave injustice, but even they don’t argue that the current case law, if left alone, supports the result they wish.
As I understand it (and I may be wrong), the court was 7-0 on the issue of whether the judiciary can oversee the legislature’s procedures, but 4-3 on whether the court should have taken the case under original jurisdiction instead of waiting for it to come through the appeal process.
If so, then the hypothetical defeat of Prosser might have delayed the ruling, but not changed it.
No, both sides (I am sure) were driven by politics, and neither side was “full of shit.”
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has the right and the power to overrule past caselaw. The dissenters were not full of shit – but they WERE pretty clearly saying that Goodland should be overturned. That’s not a objectively wrong thing to do.
But it IS making new law. And my argument all along was that under current Wisconsin law, the restraining order was illegal and the open meetings law didn’t apply.
The dissenters argue that based on broad notions of openness, openness is actually a constitutional principle. They would decide that open meetings are not just a law, but a constitutional requirement, and the legislature could not exempt themselves.
And they would argue that Goodland needed to be overturned.
No, two dissenters argue that the open meetings requirement was of constitutional dimension, and thus the legislature could not exempt itself as it did. Presumably, then, they would find that the law was passed in violation of the open meetings requirement.
Maybe so, but since this issue (public sector collective bargaining) is being debated in statehouses across the country, both Republican and Democratic controlled, his personality seems to have little bearing on the overall issue.
Mmm… I suppose not. Let me put it this way - when I saw the news story I was well aware that those posting on this board predicting this outcome were correct - I didn’t need a thread in which to discuss your wisdom. Hell, if you weren’t right from time to time what would be the point of debating?
Well, it sort of does, in that now we know that even the most benign push-back against public sector unions (what Walker campaigned on) quickly turns into a full-scale assault. His mendacity on the issue (and thus, his assholeishness) is a large part of what caused the outrage. It is a lesson that ought to be heeded, and we will see if Wisconsin does.
For someone like me, who is actually rather uncomfortable with public-sector unions and the political power they wield, him being an asshole has certainly colored my take on the issue.
I understand that, but you will concede that his personality had little to do with the underlying structural problems, and little also to do with changes being made in other states like Massachusetts.
Well, in many things, and especially in the area of the law, it’s not so much the result as the reasoning that compels the result.
Someone who saw the headline might read it and think, as Whack-a-Mole seems to, that this was simply a partisan split, with no discernable merit to either side’s reasoning. “Bricker was right, but only because there’s a 4-3 conservative majority on the court,” such an observer might think.
But that’s an overly facile analysis. What’s important is not that the Wisconsin Supremes voided Judge Sumi’s order, but the fact that they unambiguously declared Goodland to be good law, and that the dissenters didn’t argue that Goodland had been overturned or modified at some point in the past, but rather implicitly that it should be overturned now.
Well, Bricker, while we’re on the subject of your spotless integrity… Remember that Pit thread where you offered the McKinsey study to bolster your position? Just before you said I was too stupid to unzip my own pants? I’ve posted a couple of times since then, having to do with recent news reports questioning the validity of that study. Apparently, you’ve been too busy to defend your position on that, perhaps you could take a minute, glance over those reports, 'cause its not looking so good. It seems they are oddly reluctant to reveal the methods by which they obtained these exceptional…nay, unique!..results.
Not having paid attention to the original thread: is the SCOW saying judicial review doesn’t exist in Wisconsin, or simply that Wisconsin courts have no authority to interfere with legislative procedure issues?
And as to this case in particular, I think it’s the right decision. I don’t like the judiciary mucking with legislative procedure any more than I like it mucking with election results. The proper response to legislative setbacks is voting the bastards out - get to it Wisconsin.
What the courts cannot do is enjoin the publication of a law. Judicial review happens when the law becomes effective and someone sues to stop the enforcement of the law as unconstitutional… not by pre-emptive strike stopping the law before it is even published.
Further, in this particular case, the open meetings law was not violated, because the law itself contained an exception for meetings of the legislature. As long as the legislature’s meetings were conducted in accordance with its own rules, then the open meetings law is not violated.
The question before the Wisconsin Supreme court was not whether there was a case that overturned Goodland, but instead whether or not the subsequently enacted Wisconsin Open Law {Wis. Stat. § 19.81(3) } neutered it. The Wisconsin court of appeals said
Yes, you did, and I missed it, seeing as it was buried in an ongoing defense of McKinsey’s boney fidos. My mistake.
Not a matter of grace. A question of power, one partisan agenda overwhelmed another, four to three. That decides the law, so far as Wisconsin is concerned. But, as has already been noted, there was ample and well-founded dissent.
Unless, of course, you can offer us citation from legal authorities, professors of law, and that ilk, showing that this decision is met with universal, unanimous, and unquestioned approval?
Due to a generous and kindly nature, I’m inclined to do so, simply because you need this so very, very badly. But it wouldn’t be quite true, I am not so convinced. To my mind, this decision is the result of the excruciatingly precise application of parsing tweezers, and could just as easily be found otherwise. It seems clear to be that the law was poorly written, in such a way that a determined analysis could find a fine semantic and legal distinction that could void the clear intent of the thing, wlhich was to prevent just such an occurance from arising.
Aha! Zomboniracer rides to the fray, and offers clear and unequivocal rebuttal! I’m quite sure he is right, and would approach closer to certainty if I had the slightest idea what the Hell that paragraph of leaden legalese means in English.
OK. I suppose I should have said, “..or statute that voided it…”
I honestly don’t recall: did Judge Sumi’s opinion lay out the rationale that the Open Meetings Law evinced a constitutional interest and was thus subject to injunction under Lynch? Did any poster in the thread make that argument?
