Another Madison judge strikes down Act 10

You do not want to hear the string of words that left my mouth.

First, it’s ridiculously unclear as to whether or not it matters as the Governor can ask for the status quo in anticipation of an appeal, and we all know how that’s going to end.

Next, I AM TRYING TO WRITE A BOOK HERE. Don’t you judges understand I was ready to publish this weekend? Oy vey.

So here’s a blurb from the MJS that is clear as mud. Here’s another from WISN Channel 12.

If someone knows what’s going on, kindly let me in on it.


  1. Might be helpful to read the actual ruling:

    You’ll see the judge’s ruling says that these portions which he is ruling against are now null and void. What means is that Walker will ask for an injunction against the decision while it is appealed to a higher court. It also means that if the injunction is not granted, the law will be effectively struck down until the decision is overturned.

    As an aside, I have come to the conclusion that every single member of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court needs to resign. Or something. They are each illegitimate because of their antics, not because of their politics.

  2. The short answer is that Wisconsin gets to go through this all over again. Chances are if it gets to the current Supreme Court, this judge’s ruling will be overturned in another 4-3 vote. What will be interesting to see is whether an appellate court will grant an injunction. I don’t see this judge staying his order.

  3. For some local entertainment, watch every city and school board over the next two months. We all have to pass a 2013 budget by late November to send out tax bills by mid-December. Those proposals are mostly written, but unapproved, now. They assumed all the Act 10 savings.

    So, do we pass “the Act 10” budget anyway and get bit if the ruling is upheld, restoring old benefits and greatly adding to the cost when we can no longer raise taxes to cover it?

    Do we scramble and revise to use “the old way” only to have Act 10 upheld? How will we get the money back? Oh, and at least some of the Act 10 savings was used to cover inflation, etc., so how do we pay for that?

    And what about all those union contracts that will have to be (re)negotiated? With back pay. Plus interest.

    There will be pressure to bypass the appeals court and go straight to the State Supreme Court since no one will be happy with “less”.

    I’m toying with the idea of passing an “Act 10” budget and clearly stating that if Act 10 is overturned and the cost restored, we’ll lay off enough city employees people to make up the difference. Except police and fire, of course.

    Buy a BIG bag of popcorn.

  4. Oh crap. I agree with Scott’s plan to fund as if Act 10 stays, and lay off what doesn’t fit.

    That means I agree with Scott Berg. 😉

    Time to buy a lottery ticket as the world is likely ending soon.

  5. Pass an “Act 10” budget with a “sequestration” provision involving massive layoffs in the event that Act 10 remains overturned. Better yet, pass a budget that has massive layoffs, and include a provision that undoes them if Act 10 is upheld.

    The judge’s arguments don’t hold water. Apparently it’s OK for the federal government to restrict collective bargaining without violating equal protection, so unless there is something unusual in the state constitution it doesn’t seem like the judge’s ruling would hold up if it ever got to SCOTUS.

    I expect that the state Supreme Court will uphold it in another 4-3 vote.

  6. I think we need a Waukesha judge to strike up Act 10. That should even things out.

  7. KPOM, that’s not the judge’s ruling at all.

  8. Nah, the judge just has a bad feeling about Act 10 and knows in his heart it’s wrong, so he said so.

    I hear the ruling isn’t based on any case law at all. Anyone have a link?

    BTW, I think it’s sad, but amusing, that anyone is actually putting stock into that decision. Get a grip lefties. Time to Move On.

  9. Yes, there is a link in the first comment on this post…

  10. Ooops. Thanks for that. I read the comments in the dashboard and sometimes miss the continuity.

    In reviewing the ruling, the only place the judge comes close to anything but “because I said so” in his conclusion is the VI. section re: impairment of contract. My understanding was that ACT 10 changed no current contract, but only changed the rules for negotiating future contracts, so the judges ruling would only apply if the law changes current contracts.

    A lot of groups had contracts in place that were untouched until the next negotiations.

    But yes, it appears what I heard was correct. This was a lot of “because I said so” and has little to do with the law.

  11. Don’t complain with regards to your book. Go ahead and publish… then you have an excuse later on to issue a new version of the book with something that says, “Updated with new chapter on the latest controversies”, and force people who bought your book to buy it again. Two-fer!

  12. Those of you with problems with the ruling and the judge are not looking at the arguments presented to him — or, actually, not presented to him at all.

    The judge did his job, which is to weigh the arguments in the case. The state aka the AG (and the law firm already paid two-thirds of a million bucks to help him) did not offer any reasoning as to why the law is constitutional. The state simply stated that it is constitutional, which is not good lawyering; indeed, it is laughable lawyering.

    You really, really need to replace Van Hollen. He — and Walker; ask Milwaukee County — are only going to keep costing all of us millions and lose, if they keep ignoring Law School 101. If only we could only bill only those voters who voted for jokers, because they give us only laughable lawyering . . . and laws pushed through too fast for hearings and good lawmaking.