1741

I mean, it was pretty cut and dry that they violated the open meetings law. I don’t see how any court could vote any other way. The law is black and white, you need 24 hours notice, and that was not given. Plain and simple.

Uggh.

1742

4-3, yet another partisan layer.

1743

Did the SC address the open meetings violation and explain why it wasn’t a violation?

1744

The opinion is here: http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=66078

More or less no - they assert that the Open Meetings Law did not make a change to the state constitution (as it hasn’t gotten through the necessary steps to do so yet) and:

As the court has explained when legislation was challenged based on allegations that the legislature did not follow the relevant procedural statutes, “this court will not determine whether internal operating rules or procedural statutes have been complied with by the legislature in the course of its enactments.” Id. at 364. “[W]e will not intermeddle in what we view, in the absence of constitutional directives to the contrary, to be purely legislative concerns.” Id. The court’s holding in Stitt was grounded in separation of powers principles, comity concepts and “the need for finality and certainty regarding the status of a statute.” Id. at 364-65.

1745

So basically, the legislature’s rules are the legislature’s rules and they can do whatever they want as long as they don’t care.

1746

Is the open meetings law an actual law or a legislative procedural rule? If the latter, I can understand the SC ruling. If the former, I don’t get it. It’s a law unless the SC strikes it down, no?

1747

It’s a law - to try and translate the quote I posted, basically they’re saying that unless the constitution says otherwise, they will not get involved in procedural squables of the Legislature - whether it’s a procedure estabilished by internal rules or statute.

The Open Meetings Law is just a statute (hence them pointing out that it is not part of the Constitution), and as such they will duly ignore complaints that it was violated.

1748

So it’s a law that’s been passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor, but it’s apparently a law that cannot be enforced because the SC refuses to rule on cases that involve the law. Why doesn’t the SC just void the law then?

Sunshine laws are a good thing. I would hate to see them become meaningless.

1749

It pretty much did.

If the legislature fails to follow self-adopted procedural rules in enacting legislation, and such rules are not mandated by the constitution, courts will not intervene to declare the legislation invalid. The rationale is that the failure to follow such procedural rules amounts to an implied ad hoc repeal of such rules.
So even if they put this in the statute:

Subsections (2) and (3) of Wis. Stat. § 19.97 provide:
(2) . . . [T]he attorney general or the district attorney may commence an action . . . to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

(3) Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.

It’s meaningless.

1750

So obvious a ruling it’s 4-3!

1751

“implied repeal?” If a legislative organ does something illegal it is presumed to have made it legal first? Woooooooow.

1752

Man, that sets a terrible precedent in Wisconsin. They may as well just toss out all the laws not set out in the constitution, or at least all those laws related to government procedure.

1753

If I’m reading the case right, according to the majority that was already the precedent in Wisconsin.

1754

It’s mind-boggling. I heard about it some time ago and I’m sure there’s some nuanced rationalizing going on, but it’s waaaay over my head. At face value, this clearly stinks to high heaven and I’d really like to think that people on both sides of the aisle agree (at least when TV cameras aren’t on them).

1755

Yeah, this seems a pretty crazy ruling, even considering how politically charged this whole situation has become. Wisconsin legislature is not bound by laws? I’m sure that will work out well!

1756

I didn’t say I agreed with it.

Basically the SC came back and said that if you want them to enforce a law you better amend the Constitution, which is pretty stupid. I’d love to see this case cited in every ruling in Wisconsin for the next 30 years, but I’m sure they’ll weasel out of it and say it only applies to the legislature, blah, blah.

Its a shitty thing to have on the record and makes anything the legislature passes in an attempt to regulate itself pointless if you can just say “I don’t see it in the Constitution!”

1757

Please hold all tickets. Good ol’ Judge Prosser just made things real interesting again.

1758

Yup.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers last week, according to at least three knowledgeable sources.

Details of the incident, investigated jointly by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, remain sketchy. The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships.

They say an argument that occurred before the court’s release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees culminated in a physical altercation in the presence of other justices. Bradley purportedly asked Prosser to leave her office, whereupon Prosser grabbed Bradley by the neck with both hands.

1759

If he did that he should be gone, no question about it, that is completely unacceptable behavior.

1760

I’m glad laws are being interpreted by professional, intelligent adults who’re calmly, rationally applying their knowledge and reason to the situation.