The budget repair bill goes down

Any surprises? No. Sumi has decided. The law is void.

Yoo Hoo, Governor Walker? It’s your turn.

Comments

  1. Wait a minute. How can she void a law she said doesn’t exist because she wouldn’t let it be published?

    Here’s the ruling: http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/May11/0526/0526sumi.pdf

    I’m not even going to bother reading it.

  2. Randy in Richmond says:

    In my way of thinking everyone makes mistakes. But whoever on the Republican side responsible that did not make this notification in a timely manner should be fired or not allowed to run for re-election. It is an unforgiving and egregious error.

    If it’s because they tried to usurp the procedures they got exactly what they deserve.

  3. Anonymous Politico says:

    More political ads now, I hope.

  4. John Foust says:

    Thanks for the morning chuckle, Cindy! 🙂

  5. Randy, that’s assuming it happened as the Judge proclaims and the defense isn’t legitimate. This judge is not unbiased enough to be believable. The case will keep going, no doubt.

    I think it’s interesting she pushed this ruling out 1) in front of the June 6 Supreme Court scheduled date to consider it, and 2) so very quietly. Very quietly. Strangely quiet. No one anticipated her decision was coming that I can find.

  6. John Foust says:

    I realize you might be at a disadvantage because you refuse to read the decision, but on what basis would the Supreme Court decide to take up this case? How is Sumi biased?

  7. The Lorax says:

    Yeah, Republican-appointed judge Sumi. You are all acting like she’s some sort of boogeyman, but just can’t accept the law being applied.

    Thought you’d be supporting this upholding of open meetings laws, Cindy, as you like sunshine in government.

    Randy’s right – they screwed up. Justice, and sunshine prevails.

  8. It’s conceded that the notification was 10 minutes less than 2 hours as a matter of fact. So what?

    Ms Kangaroo ignores Senate Rule 93, which obviates ‘open meeting’ requirements for special session meetings; she declares, making it up all the way, that Legislative rules are subject to Open Meeting requirements, despite the plain language of the Open Meeting statute to the contrary.

    After that is this: 10 minutes is “de minimis.” Except for the fact that this is a political life-or-death situation (for Sumi AND for all the unions), nobody would give a fig.

    On June 6th, SCOWI will take the case which demands that Sumi be told to take a long hike off a short pier, filed by SecAdmin. Same day, or very soon thereafter, Leggies will add the Walker reforms to the budget and re-pass.

  9. Lorax, a point I made which you ignored is that she said it wasn’t a law, and then she said it was a law but it was void. It’s impossible to have it both ways.

    Dad29 finishes what would have been my argument. The laws everyone wants to apply do not for this committee meeting where another rule does.

  10. never try to interpret a court decision, except for the obvious result, on the day it comes out, without a fair and deliberate reading.

  11. I didn’t try to interpret it at all. I repeated a line from the news and then asked a question.

  12. Just for the record:

    Open Meetings Law Section 19.87: “No provision of this sub chapter which conflicts with a rule of the Senate, or Assembly or Joint Rule of the legislature shall apply to a meeting conducted in compliance with such rule.”

    Senate Rule of the Special Session 93(2): “A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and a bulletin of committee hearings may not be published.”

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    I was confused by Lorax saying Sumi was appointed by a Republican. I thought you elected Judges. A quick look-up shows she was appointed by then Governor Thompson in 1998 and has been elected twice in Dane County. In your recent Supreme Court election, Dane County went for Kloppenburg by a 73-26% margin. I also found Sumi’s husband is an active Democrat who donated to 3 of the 13 Democratic Senators who jumped ship and her son worked for the SEIU as well as the AFL-CIO.

    http://mediatrackers.org/2011/03/judge-sumis-husband-donated-to-three-of-badger-14/

    You may have provided all this earlier Cindy but I wasn’t following that closely. But what does come to mind are US Supreme Court Judges David Souter and John Paul Stevens, each appointed by Republican Presidents, who all would agree voted consistantly on the left side of issues. Sumi’s appointment by a Republican is trumped by her 2 elections in a liberal area and family ties that are at the least–questionable to hear this particular case.

  14. as one who has been a judge, elected, let me explain. WI. has non-partisan elections for all judges including supreme court. the terms vary with the court branches. only if there is a vacancy caused by death, disability, resignation, removal, election to another office, or not to seek re-election can an appointment be made. maybe also in creation of a new court branch. appointments of state judges are made by the governor without confirmation. they are mostly political in nature: same party affiliation, an old friend, a contributor or supporter. for the most part ability is not an issue although some effort is made in that regard. elected state judges cannot practice law, participate in partisan political events and membership or use their influence in a non-judicial manner. in the career of a judge strictly political decisions are very rare because political cases before them are very rare.judges can and do openly support non-partisan candidates for office. most people like judges that rule in their favor.

  15. Well said Mr. Steinberg.

    “I also found Sumi’s husband is an active Democrat” – Randy

    Not exactly grounds for recusal. I also suspect Sumi’s husband would take exception to your claim: “I am a rather small-time political donor and have donated to candidates on both sides of the aisle, as well as to nonpartisan candidates. My political ethics are my own, are neither restricted by nor imposed on my family, and are not anyone else’s business.”

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/column/guest/article_19c3eaea-7050-11e0-84f8-001cc4c002e0.html

  16. on the bench i had some recusal decisions and based them on my ability to make a fair decision based on the law. there are some recusal guidlines for judges but there is no mandate to be responsible for your family politics. to do that would eliminate many judges who are involved in family table discussions. i like the “bite the bullet” idea.

  17. anti-neocon says:

    “It’s conceded that the notification was 10 minutes less than 2 hours as a matter of fact. So what?”

    Because, dad29, it violated the law. Duh!

    “Leggies will add the Walker reforms to the budget and re-pass.”

    So why haven’t the Republicans who run the Senate taken this course of action two months ago?

    Cindy, you gave the best line on Illy-T’s blog–“You win”. Thank you for admitting that he has taken the legal bull by the horns and completely and thoroughly explained why Sumi’s ruling is CORRECT and BY THE BOOK, that even the most conservative justices on our Supreme Court would render.

  18. Well, it was supposed to may him happy. You are just along for the ride. Just how long do you expect the happiness to last?

  19. Randy in Richmond says:

    milton

    Stating one is non-partisian is like saying one is a little bit pregnant.

    Interesting article by Carl A. Sinderbrand, husband of Judge Maryann Sumi. He states he has “donated to candidates on both sides of the aisle.” Notice how he doesn’t say he has donated to Democrats and Republicans, who he donated to, or when. Most anyone in the country could make the same statement as he — because it means nothing. Also he left off what son Jake lists as a major in college on his Facebook site–political science. And the public records on his political donations list no Republicans since 1992 but almost yearly contributions to ex-Sen. Feingold. And of course as pointed out here and other places, Mr. Sinderbrand donated to 3 of the 13 State Senators who deserted their responsibilities.

    Let me be the first to say there is nothing whatsoever wrong with any of this for Mr. Sinderbrand. But for the wife of a person who donated to State Senators so involved in the debate of a law they left the state, and whose son (while living at home) worked in a Presidential election year for two unions also involved heavily in the debate of the same law in the same state, for this wife to sit in judgement on the political process of debating this law, is at best–highly questionable. Remember, her husband, the person she sits across the table from at meals and goes to bed with at night, and her son have direct ties to one of the parties involved in the debate of the very law on which she ruled.

  20. anti-neocon says:

    “But for the wife of a person who donated to State Senators so involved in the debate of a law they left the state, and whose son (while living at home) worked in a Presidential election year for two unions also involved heavily in the debate of the same law in the same state, for this wife to sit in judgement on the political process of debating this law, is at best–highly questionable.”

    Ok, using your own logic and arguments presented, do you feel the same way about Justices Scalia and Thomas?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/politics/20koch.html

  21. Randy in Richmond says:

    Anti-neocon
    When Justices Scalia and Thomas sit across the table at most every meal with- and then go to bed with one of the Koch brothers–I will feel the same way.

    And the allegation about Scalia’s wife starting a group to oppose Obama–I agree that Mr. Sinderbrand has the same right to do so.

  22. anti-neocon says:

    “When Justices Scalia and Thomas sit across the table at most every meal with- and then go to bed with one of the Koch brothers–I will feel the same way.”

    How convenient for you to make this comment to downplay a clear association with like-minded people. I’m not saying there is any clear cut nefarious scheme between the Koch Brothers and the Justices, but it does make one wonder what are the motivations and intentions. The appearance of bias will provide fodder for opponents, and one would think that a Supreme Court Justice regardless of their ideology would be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interests and steer clear from them.

  23. Randy in Richmond says:

    anti-neocon
    You state:
    The appearance of bias will provide fodder for opponents, and one would think that a Supreme Court Justice regardless of their ideology would be acutely aware of potential conflicts of interests and steer clear from them.

    This sums up my points about Judge Sumi and I could not have said it better. Certainly there is no distinguishing between levels of judges on the subject of conflict of intereset.

  24. anti-neocon says:

    Except, Randy, Judge Sumi wrote a decision that is clear cut to the letter of the law, i.e. judicial restraint. It’s all laid out right here. Now, I’m sure that I will be accused of “bias” myself, considering the source I am citing. But the arguments are clear and concise.

    illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/05/fitzgeralds-try-foisting-civics-lesson.html

    illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-patrick-mcilheran-lies-for-wisgop.html

  25. Randy in Richmond says:

    anti-neocon
    I have never questioned Judge Sumi’s decision, only her sitting to make it.

    Perhaps you did not read my comment #2 of this post.