Sumi to continue TRO

Well there’s a freakin’ news flash. I kind of figured she’d come up with someway to keep this moment going.

How long until a temporary anything becomes a tool of abuse?

Here’s the tweet from @news3jessica:

Sumi will continue TRO, hearing until lawmakers give counsel permission to proceed without them, waive immunity, or immunity expires.

Doesn’t this kind of sound like extortion? She’s going to keep it all going until the lawmakers give into her demands. If you read the tweets you begin to see what’s going on here: Sumi backed herself into a corner and doesn’t want to have to rule. She’s dragging out a schedule that will take more than a month and is somewhat insisting the Republicans will have to vote the matter again to make this disappear.

I sure hope she gets what she deserves when all this wraps up. There’s nothing worse than a person who won’t admit a mistake when one’s been made. She’s in over her head. She knows it. So now she has to escalate the situation to save face.

So, to all those school districts waiting to see what happens, you can thank Judge Maryann Sumi for her efforts in this matter. I used to think it would be a good idea to vote it again and get it over. Now I think it will be a lot more fun to watch her implode.

Comments

  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    The story of this Judge’s hearing is not on Drudge or HuffPo. They are silent about this whole affair with the exception of this on Drudge :

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119037014.html

    She would be one of the good guys, right ?

    It took coaxing from the Republican Attorney General for the Democratic Dane County prosecutor to act. Did someone remove the blindfold from Lady Justice in Dane County ?

  2. There has never been any doubt that the Republicans would not even hint of a revote until after Tuesday’s election.
    Even then they may decide to wait longer which will probably force school districts to issue layoff notices to protect themselves.
    I can envision the Republicans letting that scenario play out until school starts in September. There could be a significant number of teachers wondering if they will have a job this fall throughout the summer.

  3. Randy in Richmond says:

    Jim
    I’m not sure I understand your bent. You talk about the Republicans like they have no care for the teachers, what with layoffs and job security. If the Democrats had remained in town like grownups and carried out their responsibilities and duties this would all be settled law.

  4. I know there’s been shuffling at East already. This isn’t easy, but I still feel it is necessary. I sense, Randy, that Jim’s point was nobody’s going know anything for a while. I’d blame the Dems for throwing such a snit fit when it could all be settled already.

    My guess was a re-vote wouldn’t happen until after May 2 when all the possible deadlines have passed for the recall petitions. I also read where Prosser’s internal polling “has him worried” for next Tuesday. Those internal polling rumors are more often than not put forward as psychological tactics, so I never, ever believe that stuff from either side. Has anyone seen any other polls? I may dig around a bit.

  5. Randy, unfortunately there are some Republicans whom I believe are more focused on minimizing the future impact of the union and the fact that some younger teachers will suffer because of the current TRO is just part of the process. One must also be careful to differentiate between the “union” and individual teachers.
    Teachers who get the layoff notices will be younger teachers who are probably not all that involved with union activities.
    I also have had personal working relationships with some of Walker’s key advisors on education. In my opinion their primary goal and focus is to minimize the power of the union.
    Having thought about Cindy’s comment on timing for a possible revote, I agree that nothing will happen until after the deadline for the recall election petitions.

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    For a legal look at this issue a Wisconsin trial lawyer has written a treatise that takes a different look at what the law actually says. I doubt his article will change any minds but he presents his facts in a very understandable manner. IF what he says is accurate it’s just a matter of time until Judge Sumi is over-ruled.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/do-challenges-to-wisconsin-labor-bill-have-merit-no/2/

  7. anti-neocon says:

    “I sure hope she gets what she deserves when all this wraps up. There’s nothing worse than a person who won’t admit a mistake when one’s been made. She’s in over her head. She knows it. So now she has to escalate the situation to save face.”

    Patently false. Methinks you require a primer on constitutional law.

    illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/03/wisconsin-ozanne-v-fitzgerald-preview.html

    illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/03/wisconsin-statutes-couple-three-of-them.html

  8. After all, everyone knows an anti-neocon is a constitutional law expert!

    Any IT fan is by definition not a fan of mine. He makes up words where none existed and calls it proof!

  9. John Foust says:

    As opposed to blogging by non-lawyers?

  10. Hey, non-lawyers think, too.

  11. John Foust says:

    And they make up things and call it proof.

  12. Well you tell me what I’ve made up and we’ll discuss it. The arguments I’ve had recently with your band of merry men are something else. I mean it when I say they take the law, add words that were never there to start, then they juggle it all around and call it fact.

    I guess it’s good work if you can get someone to pay for it, but I don’t think it will hold up well in the end.

  13. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–It would appear that you are in complete denial. Illy-T presents the facts clearly and concisely. Utterly dismissing his cogent points simply because you are “not a fan” is illogical. You do understand that the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office has royally screwed up things from the get-go, right? And that Illy-T is pointing out their errors, which they admitted in court, correct?

  14. No, I’m in complete disagreement. I presented the facts quite well, too. They just don’t come to the same conclusion as your argument.

    My comment was “Any IT fan is by definition not a fan of mine.” But, you twisted that to say that I’m “dismissing his cogent points simply because (I am) ‘not a fan.'” It’s a perfect example of how you guys are constantly messing up the details. No wonder you’re having such trouble with the legal bits.

  15. John Foust says:

    Legal bits? Gosh, Cindy, what’s the purpose of a TRO?

  16. No, you don’t get to change the subject. He blew that “fan” business. Someone gets to own it.

  17. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–You stated, “any IT fan is by definition not a fan of mine.”

    This statement can be viewed in two ways.

    One–I [meaning you] am not a fan of IT. Recall that you just said you are in “complete disagreement” with his interpretation of the facts. That’s wonderful, you are entitled to your opinion. One can surmise, however, that you are not a fan of how he looks at evidence and draws conclusions from that evidence.

    Two–I (meaning me) am automatically not a fan of you because I am a fan of Illy-T. How so? By your definition, which is…? Any evidence besides YOUR assumption? All I did was provide a link and inferred using your own comments that you are not a fan of how IT looks at things. IT makes several points, but you disagree. You are, in essence, dismissing them.

  18. No, we disagree there, too. The statement means exactly what it says – if you are one to follow the stylistic interpretations of Illusory Tenant, then you are not going to like what I’m putting on my blog.

  19. John Foust says:

    Wow! It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.

  20. Nice line, but it means nothing, John. You just don’t like it that I stand my ground without resorting to name calling. You never have quite figured out what to do with me, have you?

  21. cindy k–I respectfully disagree. IT is not being stylistic, he is using established case law and the AG’s own positions against itself to provide a heck of a position, one that is giving some on the right absolute fits. Give style points to Professor Esenberg at Marquette!

    People have every right to take a matter to court, and the court will decide whether the case has merit. Judge Sumi, contrary to what you think is amounting to a “legal hijacking”, is following protocol and procedure. It is similar to those conservatives who believe Obamacare is unconstitutional. In fact, Illy-T has dedicated a “liberals in denial” series in his blog that lays out the compelling reasons why Obamacare could be overturned by the Supreme Court if it gets that far. It has nothing to do whether or not Illy-T is taking a liberal position, it has everything to do with HOW that position is articulated with examples and proof.

  22. Sadly “the court” in this case is an activist judge. It will demand more attention past her decision I’m sure. That will take months, which I am beginning to suspect is the point.

    In the end your side will have absolutely nothing to show for it. As I linked this morning, unions are already dropping significant contract costs in order to keep the dues rolling into the coffers. School districts won’t be able to wait forever, so they’ll do what they have to do and lay off teachers because they can’t get clarity on this bill. And all along the liberals have made it clear the consequences don’t matter nearly as much as supporting an archaic system of no change.

    And that’s really funny considering the guy you fronted for the last presidential election based his candidacy on change.

    I’m not quite sure how you turned this thread into a page of homage for a liberal blogger. No doubt that other blogger is forever in your debt for defending his work. May I suggest you go kiss his backside on his site?

  23. anti-neocon says:

    “Activist judge…”

    If it makes you feel better to characterize her ruling in such a matter, be my guest!

    “You just don’t like it that I stand my ground without resorting to name calling.”

    You have stood your ground. Wonderful, although your suggestion that I “kiss his [IT’s] backside” is not quite name calling, but there is an implied dig on your part. Why, I have no idea. Whatever floats your boat.

    Not surprisingly, rather than carefully refuting IT’s analysis, you, like any other partisan on the right or left, resorts to sidestepping. Not surprising given the sad state of politics today.

    “And that’s really funny considering the guy you fronted for the last presidential election based his candidacy on change.”

    And here comes another assumption on your part. Actually, I voted for McCain, despite his VP selection. Sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes I vote Republican. It’s called being an independent.

    “I’m not quite sure how you turned this thread into a page of homage for a liberal blogger.”

    All I did, ma’am, was to provide an alternative point of view that you clearly dismissed purely because of IT’s politics, not because of the merits of the case IT presents.

    “No doubt that other blogger is forever in your debt for defending his work.”

    Um, not really. He has more important things to do.

    Why be snarky in your last post? I’ve tried to keep things civil. Are you being civil? Yes, but there is a hint of disdain on your part.

    Since it is your blog, you can have the last word…

  24. Bye.