And I did find out that it was, apparently, still good law. Thank you for being able to shepardize, as I was unable to do so. I even said as much in that thread, when we tracked the matter down, as I recall.
I still do not know why the judge ignored it. One would find that inexcusable in a judge.
Did you really have to do the Church Lady Chicken Dance?
No.
As I explained above, even the dissenters don’t argue that the law, as it was, supports their position. Read the dissents, as I invited you to do above. Show me the part that claims their position is consistent with prior caselaw.
Their claim was that they should find, as a matter of first impression, that the Open Meetings Law was of constitutional dimension. They wanted to change the law.
That’s their right, as the Supreme Court. But even they don’t claim the law, as it existed, compelled their result.
So, the issue is totally cut and dried? There is no plausible case for the other side of this, none? The three dissenters, they are utterly full of shit, and have no case whatsoever?
It appears that, once again, you would like to move the debate onto grounds where you have every possible advantage. But let me ask: are you proud of this? The law was written to prevent just such a stampede, to prevent a rush to legislation without sufficient debate. Yes?
I think that’s a good thing, how about you? And if you agree that such is wise, can you explain your approval for gutting such restraints in the name of partisan advantage?
Totally full of beans, is she? Got her law degree from a Cracker Jacks box, did she? Have you offered her your instruction, that she may be gently guided from the path of error?
Stumbles into the fray more accurately. 
For the third time: no.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has the power to overturn their prior verdicts and make new caselaw.
Here’s an example: when Ernesto Miranda was convicted, his lawyers asked the US Supreme Court to overturn his conviction on the grounds that he was never informed of his constitutional rights, and thus could not meaningfully waive them.
There was no support in the existing law for that proposition.
But the US Supreme Court said, in effect, “We announce a new rule today, a prophylactic rule: if a person hasn’t been told of their rights, they can’t waive them; a confession from a person who doesn’t know he has the right to remain silent is not admissible.”
They made new law. As was their right.
The three dissenters were not “full of shit” at all. They argued that the Open Meetings Law was not just a piece of legislation, but actually of constitutional significance. And so, they said, the legislature could not exempt itself from it. That’s a perfectly legitimate argument to make.
That wasn’t the argument Judge Sumi made, as I recall. That wasn’t the argument anyone in the earlier thread made, as I recall.
No. What the hell are you even talking about? The law was “under debate” for some three weeks, with the Democratic legislators absenting themselves from the state to avoid the debate. The “violation” of the open meetings law was a matter of ten minutes, even if you held that it did apply.
I think that our system works when we agree upon the rules first, and then those rules are observed. If the rules begin to work to the disadvantage of a particular side in a particular circumstance, and only then does the disadvantaged side cry that the rules are unfair, that’s not how the system should function. If the strike zone is defined as from midway between the top of the batter’s shoulders and the top of the uniform pants to the knees, then don’t complain when I put a midget up to the plate to bat.
Of course, you can argue that the rules should be changed. But you can’t arbitrarily announce that the rules don’t mean what they say merely because you’re unhappy with how they’re being used. You don’t like 'em? Change 'em. But observe them in the meanwhile.
No. Nobody thinks a law can’t pass quickly. The Open Meetings law seeks to ensure that decisionmaking is done publicly and with accountability.
Nothing in there in and of itself ensures sufficient debate or prevents a rush.
She’s referring to the decision to take up the case on original jursidiction, not to the merits.
You have, once again, succeeded in framing the debate firmly in your area of expertise. But, just to clarify, none of this…
…refers to the merits of the case, but to some more or less irrelevant embroidery around the edges of the issue, yes? Are you suggesting that she would *agree *with that interpretation, or might she not take issue with it? I don’t see the part where she says that she’s just blowing some smoke. They seldom do, right?
But, be that as it may, in order for the Senate to declare a full Triumph for Brickerus, it requires that your enemies are scattered before you like jackals before the lion, and you parade their women as captured slaves before your chariot, as they wail lamentations.
I suggest that a partisan divide of four against three is a mite short of such crushing victory.
“More or less irrelevant?” No.
What she’s saying there is that the majority erred by even taking up the case on original jurisdiction. It is the majority’s reasoning allowing that action that she inveighs against.
That’s not irrelevant, but neither is it the merits of the underlying action.
She’s not blowing smoke. But neither is she talking about the merits of the underlying action.
Indeed? Well, I’m perfectly happy that the law is settled, and settled on the precise grounds that I said it would be.
In line with my previous statement about changing the rules in the middle of the game… as I look back on that previous thread, I sure don’t find any place where you suggested that there was any room for mistake – even a 4-3 partisan victory for the other side – in your position.
In fact, you said:
That doesn’t seem to contemplate the notion that the judge’s order would be vacated, declared void back to the moment it was issued, does it?
Can you point to any analysis or prediction you made in that thread that turned out to be correct? Any at all?
But still, here, instead of simply admitting error, you continue to somehow insist I’ve rigged the game, “reframed” the debate so that it’s in my area of expertise.
Newsflash: the entire debate was about the law.
I didn’t reframe anything. I found it this way.
“Reality based community?”
Hah! Hah!
Actually, that is an illusion you labor under and insist that the rest of us labor under it as well. The fine points of the law are not the be-all and end-all, and we need not shuffle off to law school simply to be blessed with your acceptance. Michelle Bachman graduated law school as well, and she’s crazy as a duck on acid.
I am not the first to complain about this habit of yours to render all debates into legalese, where you have maximum advantage. Won’t be the last, either, I daresay.
But fine. Lets put you down for “golf claps”, and reserve the laurel wreaths for a more deserving situation. As for me flinging myself prostrate and begging your forgiveness, I sincerely hope that you live so long.
(Not likely, because we’re right, and you’re smart. So, sooner or later, you are ours. Have a standing order with Fatted Calfs 'R Us.)
And I’ll allow I have done so more than once.
But this time… see, this time the issue was actually about the law. So…
A little update on this issue.
A small matter of one WI supreme court justice allegedly choking another, in the presence of all but one of the other justices. This supposed happened the day before the court rendered its verdict, in a meeting in the judges’ chambers.
Justice Prosser, the newly re-elected justice who has a temper issue and has admitted to past incidents of swearing at and threatening another member of the court, is accused of putting a “choke hold” on one of the more liberal female members of the court, Justice Bradley.
Prosser has denied it. Other reports claim he was defending himself when Bradley “charged” at him. I do like Bradley’s response to this, “You can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that’s only spin…”
I’m sure there will be more to come.
Even if Prosser was removed for this it would not change the ruling already made.
Considering the time between when it allegedly happened and news of it breaking my guess is the judges present did not want to make a big deal out of it so I doubt anything will change.
i sippose it’s an update on this issue in the sense that the judges were arguing about this ruling… but not in the sense it’s relevant to the ruling or has the potential to change the ruling in any way.
It’s not clear whether the incident was not reported promptly, or whether whether the media learned of the complaint belatedly.
And I know it won’t change any decision, but I threw it in here because it didn’t seem worth its own thread, and it is at least marginally related to the case.