Raife
1721
What the fuck are you even talking about? I said “last time this came up”. What did you expect the link to be?
And please continue to spout bullshit without evidence.
eznark
1722
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Doyle also vetoed a similar bill in 2005. I’m not sure how many sheriff’s supported him then.
Raife
1723
There you go, thank you for actually looking stuff up for once. Forgot about 2005, but but I’m not digging for that information now.
eznark
1724
Sorry to disappoint, but 2005 was a guess. It was either 05 or 06. I know for a fact there were a couple of sheriffs (literally two) I spoke with personally who did not favor the most recent Doyle vetoed legislation because of the undue burden it put on applicants. They felt that the training requirements were onerous and if passed, it would be impossible to ever lower them. They felt it would be better to wait for a more favorable political climate and pass a better bill. Funny enough, current Dodge county sheriff Nehls felt the same way at the time and is now griping about the bills being too loose. Just can’t please some people. I apologize in advance for not having a link to private conversations which took place 4 years ago.
You may want to review a recent circumstance where several state senators took a debatedly legal measure to kept themselves out of the state so that a bill could not be passed without several debatedly legal manuevers by the other party. That took just a little bit of time and I doubt most of us have the legal minds to know every other trick in the book. Depending on actual numbers involved in the process, several less extreme methods may also be used. If you’re now moving the goalposts and/or clarifying that you’re just referring to Wisconsin’s political scene, the more extreme means are required. However, that means you don’t get to make blanket statements like “When you win you get to make policy, even stupid policy.”
Raife
1726
See, I gave you too much credit when you ninja edited in the ‘Doyle 2005’ line that you had actually looked it up. Won’t happen again.
The second veto was in 2006, and this LRB brief has most law enforcement agencies still being opposed to concealed carry in 2006.
On the internet, anecdotes and baseless conjecture are a dime a million. This is particularly true for someone with little history here, the majority of which is in this thread. Congratulations, you’re on track to be another Andy Bates.
eznark
1727
Not really. Until an opposition body actually mans up and leaves for an entire session, I’m sticking to my statement. They returned in Texas and gerrymandering was completed shortly thereafter. They returned in Wisconsin and the bill was passed. They returned in Indiana and the bill was passed. No significant changes were made and the majority go its way. Now, when the majority cannot stick together (see Wisconsin in 2010 or Daniels breaking from the party on right to work) obvious issues arise, however they are a result of a portion of the majority party breaking, not necessarily minority pressure.
Yes, there are exception to every rule. In Wisconsin fiscal matters need a quorum. In Ohio they do not (and the Ohio majority steam rolled the opposition without much fuss). The “check” is the legal system and opposition fury (manifested via recall) however they take time. In the interim, a party that controls all three branches with procedurally immune majorities can pass what they please.
The end result is the same as “elections have consequences” “winners win” etc. but we go to play some rhetorical games to get there! yaaaa…
On the internet, anecdotes and baseless conjecture are a dime a million. This is particularly true for someone with little history here, the majority of which is in this thread. Congratulations, you’re on track to be another Andy Bates.
A dime a dozen yet regurgitated links without original thought are apparently priceless. My point in the anecdote is that the various law enforcement agencies are beholden to the state for funding, as such they are apt to blow with the political winds, as the current discussion surrounding the inevitable conceal/carry shows. The article you linked (regarding Madison’s sheriff) has three or four top cops in favor of some sort of c/c. Maybe it’s because they have seen the conceal/carry light or maybe (to me more likely…they are politicians after all) they don’t want to pick a fight with the purse strings (be that 2003/05/11)
Andy Bates sounds wonderful.
I can only hope you have no idea what I’m writing about, as you seem to be either unable or unwilling to actually address my point let alone to stick to your own standards: first it’s a majority gives unchecked power. Then it’s Wisconsin. Now it’s only when a party controls three branches. 'Tis a shame, but I suppose I will somehow carry on. I leave you to it, as well.
eznark
1729
I was always talking about three branches and American democracy in general, as applied to the current situation (I assumed you’d pick up on that considering we are talking about Wisconsin in this thread), not sure what you’re up in arms about. I did miss-type. I didn’t mean three branches (hopefully that was obvious since I specifically touched on judicial challenges) I meant three legislative branches.
Apparently Waukesha County sped the process up in the last two days and will not need the entire extension. Considering they were on a 2.4 votes per minute count pace I’d say that’s probably a good thing. Then we can get to the meat…legal challenges!
eznark
1730
Search: Real Clear Politics Wisconsin District Election May Give Clues to Recalls
Interesting read in RCP this morning showing that Democrats have some reason for optimism in the recalls. In all but two districts up for recall, Prosser lost ground when compared to Walker.
[IMG]interesting graph would be here[IMG]
Should be a fun summer!
Yes, as the article concludes, the Dems have slightly more reason for optimism, but it’s still a very heavy lift. I agree, though, fun summer for politics in Wisconsin!
eznark -
Perhaps it’s a lack of clarity on my part - I’ve freely admitted to not exactly being the best writer on these forums, despite some people scoffing at the notion for some unknown, weird reason (sorry for the unrelated aside). Afterall, I’m not bent out of shape on this issue. It’s just that you were seeming to be overly simplistic and unnuanced about the legislative process in general, not in respects to this particular case. When someone on the Internet is wrong, it is the calling of all good and just threadcops/trolls like myself to stamp out such evil wherever we may find it.
eznark
1733
How bout we split the difference and agree that nothing can be done without the approval of the majority. However, since it was a throwaway generalization that you wanted to nitpick, let’s continue!
To really belabor our discussion though, look at an issue like voter ID. The GOP will likely lose a couple of votes in the senate and the assembly but it won’t matter. When a single party holds all three legislative branches it can ram through a bill (if you consider a decade of plodding refusal to back down on campaign promises “ramming”) given enough political will. In some bodies it takes more than in other depending on the particular rules, but in the end given enough power the majority can do what it will…generally to its detriment (see the last country wide mid-terms or the apparently significant shift in the couple of months between the governor and supreme court elections). Specifically to Wisconsin, the majority can quite literally pass any non-fiscal bill it so desires. Should the democratic senators leave again, it won’t hinder the state from passing conceal/carry, voter id, school choice expansion, etc.
I’m honestly not even sure what nits you are picking anymore, unless you expect every conversation to contain every possible event in any conceivable scenario. However then I imagine you’d come up with implausible and nearly inconceivable scenarios that the post author did not in fact address for your “gotcha” moments. Hey, more power to you. We all enjoy the message boards in our own special ways!
Actually, those weren’t the nits I was picking - I had originally thought you were addressing the legislative process on a macro level, not on a micro level. You’ve since clarified the intended scope of your original statements. If you’re curious as to what I was trying to get at, one such example is on the Federal level in the not too distant past: the Democrats held the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and yet were unable to just ram through anything they felt like.
eznark
1735
But that was a lack of political will, something I addressed earlier. I said they “can” as in “have the ability to” not that they will. Next time I use the phrase carte blanche, I will hedge with “should they so choose.”
Back to the topic, Kloppenberg sent out an email asking for donations on Monday. Pretty clear she is taking this to the courts.
Actually, they couldn’t because they didn’t have enough of a majority in the Senate needed to override the fillibuster and invoke cloture. The only possible way around that was the so-called “nuclear”/“Constitutional” option. However, attempting to invoke this option would have then resulted in committees screeching to a halt and stopping further bills from being considered (that’s also how the whole “gang of 14” came into play, to prevent this from happening). In that case, it would have taken the will of the opposition to allow passage of bills.
Collective bargaining law void (for now, anyway…)
Source.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin’s law taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most public workers was struck down Thursday by a circuit court judge but the ruling will not be the final say in the union fight that brought tens of thousands of protesters to the Capitol earlier this year.
The state Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for June 6 to decide whether it will take the case. Republicans who control the Legislature also could pass the law a second time to avoid the open meeting violations that led to the judge’s voiding the law Thursday.
More here…
Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi said Republican lawmakers violated the state’s open meetings law in rushing the legislation through during massive protests at the state Capitol earlier this year.
…
“The legislators were understandably frustrated by the stalemate existing on March 9, but that does not justify jettisoning compliance with the open meetings law in an attempt to move the budget repair bill to final action,” Sumi wrote.
“Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the committee’s awareness of its violation, one need only read the short transcript of the committee’s March 9 proceedings.”
Sumi said the legislators had the opportunity to correct their violation without admitting error, but failed to do so.
Boldface mine.
Raife
1738
Kloppenburg conceded the State Supreme Court race, so Levine and others can stop shrieking that she’s going to hold everything up in the courts. Also, all six recall petitions against the Republican State Senators were approved by the non-partisan GAB, while none have been approved yet against the three Democratic State Senators. Why not? The GAB says they raise “numerous factual and legal issues which need to be investigated and analyzed.” Yup.
Conservatives and some political observers are making a big deal out of the fact that the Dem candidate in the closely watched state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin finally conceded defeat today, as had long been expected.
But surely it’s also a big deal that we now know for certain that six Wisconsin Republican state senators will officially face recall elections, while a grand total of zero Democrats may face the same?
Today the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board announced that they have now approved the signatures required for recall elections against the following six GOP senators: Rob Cowles, Alberta Darling, Sheila Harsdorf, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, and Luther Olsen. That means these six elections are definitely moving forward.
Meanwhile, the board has also announced that they are not prepared to approve the signatures gathered by Republicans for the recall of their three Democratic targets. Dems have alleged that the signature gathering by Republicans is fraudulent, and now the board has explicitly claimed that their reason for not approving the recall elections against Dems is that the signatures “have raised numerous factual and legal issues which need to be investigated and analyzed.”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/14/wisconsin.collective.bargaining/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Looks like the WI Supreme Court has decided to overturn the injunction against the law and allow it to be implemented now.
So the Open Meetings Law calls for any violation to void the legislation, but if the Open Meetings Law is violated, that just means an implied repeal. So much for those silly things called laws.
