 |
| Anti-government protestors. |
Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated Gov. Scott Walker's plan to all but end collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.The court heard the case and ruled on it one week later. That's an impressively fast ruling.
The opinion voided all orders in the case from the lower court.
The court ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's ruling, which had held up implementation of the collective bargaining law, was void ab initio, or invalid from the outset.These poor people in Wisconsin voted and placed these people in power, and the government employees and union thugs don't care what the people want who voted in this government. What is outrageous is their attempt to portray the legislature's actions as somehow subverting the democratic process. People holding this opinion couldn't be further from the truth.
In its decision, the state's high court concluded that "choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts."
The court concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law.
The legal fight over Walker's plan will continue on other fronts.I'm sure. That's part of mob rule and subverting the will of the people. "Who cares how they voted, we've got union stiffs we can bus in to yell and scream, and that's what this nation was founded upon!"
Right.
During arguments, four of the justices signaled they were skeptical of Sumi's ability to halt the law. "I think frankly you've got to amend the constitution" to have the open meetings law apply to legislators, Roggensack said during arguments.That's a slap down.
In its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it took up the case because the lower court had "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature."
"That's a slap down."
ReplyDeleteYep. But I wonder if she cares. The law doesn't seem important to her.
It reminds me of District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor including “There are no hereditary kings in America” in her ruling against the Bush administration and then being overturned by the U. S. Court of Appeals. Sound bites seem more important than being right.
And then there's the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being the most liberal and most often reversed.
The left, and the vintage media who are their tool, have made a concerted effort to politicize the courts, and rulings are seen in a very partisan light, rather than in a reflection upon the law. It used to be that judges dreaded and feared being reversed by a higher court, as it reflected upon their competence and understanding of the law. Not so these days it would seem, and there is no better example then the Ninth Circuit, as you point out. It is a sad state of affairs, to be sure.
ReplyDelete