"Wisconsin Judge Blocks New Anti-Collective Bargaining Law"

I'm curious to know how many judges got involved in the past when Democrat politicians got in bed with unions and gave them more "rights" (be serious about it - it's leverage and add-ons, not "rights") and more money and allowed tenure to be abused. Was it a LEGAL matter then?

As I understand the rule being challenged is not the open meeting law but the rules the Senate made to comply with the law. Do we want a local judge to determine the rules of the government? For example a School board may hold a Public Meeting (meeting held in the public) and not allow people to speak. They may hold a public hearing where you must register to speak or they may hold a public meeting and allow all to have time to speak. Should a judge have the right to say that you have to allow anyone who wants to speak be given an unlimited amount of time? Should a judge determine how elected bodies govern themselves? Is this just a Union Delaying action for them to settle more contracts?

She's nothing but a shill for the unions. Bought and paid for like a slave at auction. The Wisconsin Open Meetings law (which she cites) clearly reads.. "(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting." Since the Wisconsin State Constitution grants the state legislature the authority to make the rules by which it operates, the Senate is the ones that get to decide when the 2 hours rule applies. In other words, the little anal fissure doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. The coward also left for vacation right after making the "ruling". I wonder if she went to Illinois. ;~D What the state Assembly and Senate should do now is simply vote on the bill again, the pass it along to Gov. Walker, who would then sign it. This would make the judge's act of judicial activism a useless gesture.

As Ted stated, it's not really a legal issue and not one for the courts to decide. It's a procedural issue and one that should be challenged, and resolved, by the state legislature. The judge really has no standing on the issue.

This matter was looked into before the Republicans ever voted. Because they were already in session, they didn't have to announce being in session. I'm not surprised, though. Union bosses know that losing will be devastating to them. Unions don't belong in the government. We should have never allowed that to happen. They're lucky that the only things being proposed are to get rid of collective bargaining about benefits and pensions. The real reason, though, that unions are up in arms is that all of the states that are fighting this way are doing so to get rid of the notion that public employees HAVE to be in unions. They should have the right to not be in unions if they so desire. And, the unions HATE that states no longer want to collect member dues for them. It's never been about the kids and it's hardly about the union members.

.....Hi gladys hope you are feeling okay. My first post just disappeared, whether I did it or otherwise, here I go again. It's amazing that they put those people through all of that garbage. All they had to do was to give them two hours notice for an emergency session, they rammed it through with one hour and fifty-five minutes. Five minutes and they crapped it up. Love it. They didn't need the Dems, used only Republican votes. Got their ducks all in order, yes? No, there was a turkey in the line and he chuckled. I love it. I hope the judge's order becomes permanent, she said that the opponents may win in this case and I don't see why not. The rule was violated. Plain and simple. We'll see what happens. Next year Governor Walker should start putting out resumes because I think they are coming for him. Cheers