Sumi displays a lack of independence

According to a letter written by the DOJ’s office, Judge Maryann Sumi showed her judicial undies a few days before her ruling. In other words, it’s very fair to question her independence in this ruling.

From the letter dated May 25th:

Specifically, before the Supreme Court you advocate that an act of the legislature can be voided as a result of an Open Meetings Law violation. (Dane County Circuit Court brief at 25, 33-44). However, you have not yet adjudicated this issue in the circuit court action over which you preside. This gives rise to the appearance that you have committed to an issue still pending. Also, the decision to participate as an active litigant in the Supreme Court proceeding raises an additional concern to the extent that you may now be considered adverse to the positions and legal interests of certain named defendants in the circuit court action.

And she did it all by herself.

No doubt liberals happy with Judge Sumi’s ruling today will come from far and wide to tell me I don’t even have the right to read a letter from the DOJ since I’m not an attorney. But heck. Why not? One should never step away from the opportunity to keep a liberal reeling.

It will take a while, but I still argue this bill will end as planned with greater protection for our state’s taxpayers. I’m not sure how the final action will come, but I do know the administration has way too much on the line not to finish the job properly one way or another. In the meantime, remember that concessions have already been made by the unions. Little by little, the choke hold they’ve had on this state is loosening. Sure, they’ll threaten otherwise, but those threats have yet to turn into action beyond multi-million dollar law-enforcement tabs and foul smelling hallways at the state capitol.

Comments

  1. Da Unions ain’t made NO ‘concessions’ on work rules, which is the REAL money in the pouch. Pension/health contributions are nice, but the rules are vital.

    They’re also retaining check-off dues, by the way.

  2. The payment of dues by force is something I’d love to see go.

  3. Even if the Supreme Court breaks along their highly partisan right wing lines, and this draconian bill passes, It does NOT give greater protections to the states taxpayers.

    That is quite the spin, Walker should bring you in to meet with him instead of frank luntz….plus I bet you would cost the taxpayers of WI much less money.

  4. By the way, No one takes “dues by force” anymore than they take “taxes by force”

  5. “Little by little, the choke hold they’ve had on this state is loosening.”

    Don’t forget about the choke hold being administered by the head of the Milwaukee firefighters union.

    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/122428229.html

    Dang liberals.

  6. gnarlytrombone says:

    “And she did it all by herself.”

    Cindy, I know you’re averse to reading, but if you take a look at the Supreme Court’s May 4 order (PDF) you’ll find this:

    “IT IS ORDERED that the respondents Circuit Court for Dane County, et al., shall each file a response to the petition for supervisory writ and for immediate temporary relief, with a supporting memorandum, on the issue of whether this court should accept jurisdiction over the petition for supervisory writ and on the merits of the substantive issues raised in the petition for supervisory writ, on or before May 18, 2011.”

  7. We’ll see. Perhaps showing your hand before the ruling was a tad out of the regular order of things. Perhaps not.

    I’m more focused on the bottom line – pull back collective bargaining among the power hungry unions in Wisconsin. Still think it could happen, so you guys better take your little victories while you can.

  8. gnarlytrombone says:

    I’d say refusing an order from the Supreme Court would be a “tad out of the regular order of things.”

    As is the Attorney General masquerading press releases as motions.

  9. anti-neocon says:

    “…turn into action beyond multi-million dollar law-enforcement tabs and foul smelling hallways at the state capitol.”

    Yep, tens of thousands of fine, Wisconsin citizens are utterly wrong with exercising their First Amendment rights on legislation they disagree with. They should shut their traps, take their medicine (and a bath), and let the “adults” handle matters. (rolling of eyes)

  10. Those weren’t all Wisconsin residents camping out in the hallways. If you firmly believe them all to be well-meaning Wisconsinites get in touch. I have a bridge to sell you.

  11. Cindy, were you there? It appears to me your selling a bridge sight unseen that you dont know what its about.

    As we saw recently the only ill meaning people there appear to be republican lawmakers, specifically scotty fitz.

  12. I’m very comfortable with my assessment, Jeff. Sorry – I only have one bridge available. Maybe you can bid the price up?

  13. I was just vurious where your getyong yoir info. I was there, your info is flawed.

  14. Imagine that. Jeff Simpson is telling me I’m wrong.

  15. Nope. Just telling you, someone gave you bad info. You were misled, and im trying to guide you to the light.

  16. anti-neocon says:

    Cindy–Even if there were “outsiders” at the capitol, who cares! MOST were Wisconsinites. Regardless if people from other states came to protest, they SHARE the same cause. It is similar to the Tea-Partiers who held rallies and citizens came from other states in support. AMERICANS have the right to assemble and the right to free speech. Protest crowds generally have a few individuals who take matters to extreme , and those who oppose the demonstrators of course are going to make the generalization the entire group were “not well-meaning” and lacked proper decorum.

  17. Oh. So now I’m not supposed to care that out-of-state protesters camped out at the capitol and ran up a multi-million dollar security bill.

    Ok. Whatever you say. You are always right. It’s such a blessing, you know, not to have to think for myself or anything. Really.

  18. Just helping you out with some facts. The vast vast majority where wisconsinites to the core.

    The protestors didnt run up the security bill, mike huebsch did

  19. Interesting how we started with all of the protesters being from Wisconsin and now it’s the vast vast majority. Dude. I think that means I win.

  20. Vast majority is a relative term.

    My wife was in Columbia MO checking out of her hotel and a nice young gent helped her put her luggage in her car. He noticed the WI plates and told her of his bus trip to Madison to protest, “something bad that was about to become law up there”. He also offered that he was in a convoy of bus’s that started in Kansas City paid for by the UAW. Free food and drinks too.

  21. Well thank you TerryN for that affirmation. 🙂

  22. Is this a competition or a search for truth? In the end we all lose with scott walker.

    How is that an affirmation? Its a fourth hand story that has lost in translation. My third cousin talked to a guy who wanted to come but was.told no, wisconsinites only.

    Seriously though, 150000 people at the capitol, some came from il. This is everyones fight.

    By the way, I dont have time to search, but im sure you were as upset with the out of state tee totalers who were showing up in gro ui ps of 20-30 people last year

  23. Now you are being a jerk, Jeff, by asserting your opinion on others. “In the end we all lose with scott walker.” Such a pat response. In the end, you lose by not thinking for yourself.

  24. BrkfldDad says:

    I love the circles Jeff runs around himself. When someone affirms out of state protesters, it’s fourth hand, but when he states a vast majority were Wisconsinites it’s fact. So, he talked to each and every one of them. Besides that, if a guy told his wife firsthand he went up there, wouldn’t his reporting it be third hand 🙂

    Just sayin’. Very good true blue liberal friend of mine, spent several nights at the Capitol. She’s from Brookfield, was joined by her son who is a student at Madison, and at one point six classmates of his, none of which were residents of WI, nor eligible to vote. She did enjoy their company however.

  25. Randy in Richmond says:

    Wasn’t it wise of of our Founding Fathers to establish the number of voters, not the number of protestors, that determine our elected officials.

  26. Agreed Randy the Founders were brilliant. They not only gave us a system where the person who gets the most votes wins, they also recognized that there needed to be checks and balances when people campaign on one thing and do another.

    Another thing they recognized was the enormous destruction unfettered banks and business could do to the country(but thats another story).

  27. Oooh. Straw man sighting! Poor guy. Lost that one badly, didn’t you?

  28. Again didnt know this was acompetition but no. I was just pointing out that the Founders got almost everythig right!

    By the way here is a great post by my friend Kyle.
    http://www.forwardlookout.com/2011/05/protesters-are-responsible-for-striking-down-anti-union-bill/10991

    Pointing out that the protests did matter and we did make a difference.

  29. anti-neocon says:

    It makes NO difference if ANY protest movement is an exclusive event held by the residents of a community, conducted jointly by residents of said community and outsiders, or brought forth by a majority of outsiders!

    Let’s stick to the point–people have a right in this country to protest. People unite toward a common cause and voice their displeasure, regardless if others feel if those worries are unwarranted or foolish. In most cases, the cause is legitimate concern.

    Now, MOST people demonstrate in a responsible manner. A few people act like imbeciles, but their behavior does NOT negate the efforts made by the majority. Furthermore, the Wisconsin state government CHOSE to ensure a police presence that ultimately cost time and money.

    That is the price for freedom.

    It has nothing to do with “competition”, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, “being a jerk”, “losing that one badly” or “asserting your opinion on others”. It has nothing to do with “second hand or third hand stories”.

    It has everything to do about people coming together and showing the public and government officials that they do not approve of some course of action in a relatively peaceful, organized manner.

  30. “It has everything to do about people coming together and showing the public and government officials that they do not approve of some course of action in a relatively peaceful, organized manner.”

    I agree and believe there were some protesters who were motivated by this principle. There were also many there only because of national union organizations spending millions of dollars to stage a show.

    A show that cost this state a lot of money but that’s the point. There are some who don’t care about spending other people’s money and there are conservatives.

  31. Randy in Richmond says:

    anti-neocon

    Two days ago you said this:
    Cindy, you gave the best line on Illy-T’s blog–”You win”.

    Today you said this:
    It has nothing to do with “competition”, “I’m right, you’re wrong,”

    This reminds me of a song from Bob Dylan, “ the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.”

  32. terryN can you please post some credible evidence re: “There were also many there only because of national union organizations spending millions of dollars to stage a show.”

    Something other than some guy told my wife at a gas station….

    Thanks!

  33. We have two people who have said there were others than Wisconsin residents at the protests. How many do you need, Jeff?

  34. You guys really pick at the edges dont you. Its not about if there were ANY protestors from out of state of course there were. There were over a 150,000 people one day there and tens of thousands many of the other days. I personally marched with a group of steelworks from Chicago.

    What your trying to do, and I get it out of desperation, is to diminish the effect of the protestors at the Capitol and the feelings of Wisconsinites about the current republicans. This could not have been more grassroots if they tried. It was not put together by “unions millions” nor even bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and Dick Armey. The Governor vastly overreached and the people of WI said NO and pushed back. That is all there is to it.

  35. You personally marched with a group of steelworkers from Chicago.

    I think we’re done here.

  36. Randy in Richmond says:

    Maybe somebody can explain to me how a Wisconsin law about public unions would affect a steelworker in Illinois ?

  37. I like the idea that all those Chicago steelworkers paid their own way. You know. Because it was grassroots and everything.

  38. anti-neocon says:

    Randy In Richmond–First, Cindy made that comment, not me.

    Second, refer at the context in which I referred to that comment.

    Third, let’s stick to the point that some here outright refuse to consider–Who cares who marches with whom at what venue! What matters most is that people are exercising their freedoms–in this case for collective bargaining–and when opponents of that march marginalize them, label them as “behaving like children” and “needing to take baths”, and downplay their concerns, it makes a mockery of our democratic process.

    Some bloggers have been upset when the same words and tone were directed toward Tea Partiers when they voiced their concerns. They are not any more or any less “American” than those who protested in Madison and around the country in favor of unions.

    Speaking of “grassroots”…(of course the DNC is equally as guilty)…

    washingtonindependent.com/79330/rnc-blacks-out-paid-for-by-rnc-line-on-tea-party-signs

    I only point this situation out because it demonstrates how BOTH political parties try to curry favor with their constituents, and that a “grassroots movement” in my opinion does not exist anymore because the groups are invariably tied into or linked with mainstream political parties.

  39. Randy in Richmond says:

    Sure, Cindy said it. And you championed and used it for your purpose. Then 2 days later you said it didn’t matter.

    To my knowledge no one at a teaparty function asked for and received a fake doctor’s note to excuse them from work. Further, the participants at any teaparty events of which I am familiar did not deliberatly violate their employment contracts causing several school systems to have to close unexpectantly, some for several days. This affected tens of thousands of pupils and parents as well as others. Telling me they were not paid by some systems does not lessen these actions. And I have no recall of a teaparty rally disrupting and preventing a legislative body from performing it’s sworn duties.

    Changing the debate to the right to free speech and public assembly has no validity because that right has never been challanged. Certainly one or more has the right to exercise these freedoms. I agree to point out the extremes on either side is dis-ingenuous but it will be done in the 20 second soundbite world in which we live.
    But my comments concerning Madison are not about the few, but the many. And I don’t care where they are from.

  40. What matters here is that a group of people, not all from Wisconsin, ran up a $7.8 million dollar bill “exercising their rights.” At least that’s how I remember this thing started. Then in it was “oh, they are all from Wisconsin,” then it was “oh, it was grassroots,” and now it’s pretty much back to where I started, with an expense created that in the end returns nothing. I still think unions will lose this one in the long run.

    anti-neocon and jeff simpson, your constant habit of throwing in liberal talking points when your own arguments have failed is predictable, but still annoying. I’m doing nothing more than calling you out on the practice.

  41. How did they prevent the leg from performing their sworn duties? Are teachers not allowed days off now?

    Cindy the steelworkers I was with drove up themselves,so yes they paid their own way.

    Liberal talking points? Really?

    Happy memorial day all!

  42. Randy in Richmond says:
  43. Jeff – you really want to go down the idea of the Democrats in the legislature performing their sworn duties? Really really?

  44. anti-neocon says:

    “and when opponents of that march marginalize them, label them as “behaving like children” and “needing to take baths”, and downplay their concerns, it makes a mockery of our democratic process.”

    “Some bloggers have been upset when the same words and tone were directed toward Tea Partiers when they voiced their concerns. They are not any more or any less “American” than those who protested in Madison and around the country in favor of unions.”

    Cindy, I didn’t know that these two statements in particular, and my posts overall, were “liberal talking points”. Thanks for clarifying!

    Cindy–“What matters here is that a group of people, not all from Wisconsin, ran up a $7.8 million dollar bill “exercising their rights.”

    There is an implication here that demonstrations ought to consider the possible cost to taxpayers involved and whether they indeed are on the “right side of the matter”. Our founding fathers would vehemently disagree. Protests are not “cost prohibitive” nor are they inherently “wrong” from the start. The British used that same argument with the colonists. Southerners used that same argument with civil rights activists. The argument? The protestors are foolish with their intentions, and too much money is being wasted to monitor their activities. So while you are of the OPINION that the “with an expense created that in the end returns nothing”, it is up to the general public, beginning with the recall elections this Summer and the Election 0f 2012, that will set in motion whether the majority supports the agenda by Republican governments regarding union activities. There is a significant number of people who are concerned legitimately about the loss of collective bargaining rights, ranging from liberals to moderates to independents, and I would also venture to say, some conservatives. Mind you, there were a number of counter-protests held by Tea Partiers in Madison at the same “unions” were staging their rallies. Are they also not part of the “cost”?

    Randy–“To my knowledge no one at a teaparty function asked for and received a fake doctor’s note to excuse them from work.”

    Yes, those teachers who secured doctor’s notes for protesting should receive consequences as specified in their district contract. But an argument could be made that they exercised civil disobedience. You may disagree, and that’s ok!
    And, to my knowledge and recollection, there were Tea Partiers who called in sick from work, took their children out of school, and went to a demonstration. Great! Democracy in action!

    Randy–“Changing the debate to the right to free speech and public assembly has no validity because that right has never been challanged.”

    Yes, it has been challenged by some on the right by stating that the demonstrators have no business conducting their rallies on the basis that their position is completely and utterly wrong. Please refer to Cindy’s implication.

    Randy–“And I have no recall of a teaparty rally disrupting and preventing a legislative body from performing it’s sworn duties.”

    Please tell me how the protestors in Madison, not the 14 Democrats who left for Illinois as in their eyes a form of civil disobedience, specifically prevented the Senate and/or the Assembly from conducting their everyday affairs.

    Randy–“…did not deliberatly violate their employment contracts causing several school systems to have to close unexpectantly.”

    Again, one could argue that this action constitutes civil disobedience. One could also argue that those who engaged in this conduct would be subject to disciplinary procedures.

  45. Cindy, This whole post was started because a judge stopped a law that the republicans illegally passed a bill, so yes i will gladly go there.

    Randy, i agree that is bad…i even wrote about it myself.

    http://bloggingblue.com/2011/05/10/what-is-the-difference/

  46. These points have been established.

    1. There was a large national union effort to stage a show against the duly elected representatives of Wisconsin.

    2. That effort cost the taxpayers of Wisconsin millions of dollars.

    2. Sumi has ruled by judicial fiat and has proven her incompetence by ordering Act 10 halted without the benefit of a hearing or a trial. Maybe that’s because she has a son who works for the AFL/CIO?

  47. 1. Just not true

    2. Taxpayers are on the hook for millions because of Mike Huebsch and Scott walkers fear theatre not because the extra security was needed.

    2 (again) . No hearing or trial? really? Also she doesnt have a son that works for afl-cio. this one would be rated pants on fire.

  48. Randy in Richmond says:
  49. BrkfldDad says:

    Okay, so Jake Sinderbrand used to work for the AFL-CIO and SEIU. Doesn’t that at least smack a little bit as a conflict of interest?

  50. It looks like Jeff Simpson was taken out to the woodshed this weekend. I didn’t know there were “tee totalers” at any of the demonstrations, right or left.

    Let’s look at the left wing talking points and red herrings Jeff Simpson dropped:

    – “Supreme Court…highly partisan”
    – Scotty Fitz
    – All lose with Scott Walker
    – More Scott Walker
    – Mike Huebsch

    However, this should come as no surprise coming from someone who conduct has been described in the public record as inappropriate and divisive.

  51. anti-neocon says:

    TerryN–Let me rewrite your first two points because it is littered with “conservative talking points”. I’m only taking a page from Cindy’s playbook. I am hoping that she can point out how my posts, especially my 2:18 p.m., is peppered with liberal catch phrases and rhetoric.

    “There was a group of people who felt strongly about work-related rules. They staged massive demonstrations, which required a police presence to ensure the safety of the participants in favor and against a piece of controversial legislation.”

    TerryN–“Sumi has ruled by judicial fiat and has proven her incompetence by ordering Act 10 halted without the benefit of a hearing or a trial.”

    Rick Esenberg strongly objects to anyone accusing her of incompetence or her character. Perhaps you should take his lead.

    Seeker–There can be evidence offered in support of Simpson’s positions.

  52. Even when presented with facts, some choose not to believe them.

    Rich Esenberg has his views, I have mine.

  53. Mike huebsch is a democratic talking point?

    I answered the ridiculus talking points you referred to @ forward lookout, but you already know that.

    The question is are you seeking courage or a brain? Lets hope oz comes through for you

  54. It’s a red herring, not a talking point. Had you actually attended a critical thinking course, you may have known that. Now, you just look like the token left-wing idiot.

    Please learn the English language before you mouth off here again. A preschooler with a place mat and a green crayon can form more coherent sentences than you, Jeff.