A Republican Judge

[telcoman]

I guess there really are some sane good ones?

Go figure!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/us/19 ... in.html?hp

Telcoman

[donandal]

I think your article says she is a Democrat

[telcoman]

I think your article says she is a Democrat

Actually that is not clear

I guess I assumed she was republican as she was appointed by a republican governor.The DA is a democrat but upon a closer read the article doesn't actually mention her party affilliation. My bad
I'll try to look it up

I could not find out

Perhaps it is buried somewhere?

I did find this

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 402840/pg1

Not sure if I should change the thread title?


"In the lawsuit before Judge Sumi, Ismael R. Ozanne, the Dane County district attorney and a Democrat, alleges that Republican legislators violated the state’s open meeting requirements — which require 24 hours notice or two hours in emergencies — when they pressed through the bill. Republican lawmakers dominate both chambers in Wisconsin, but had been blocked from passing the measure when Senate Democrats left the state in February, preventing a needed quorum. On March 9, the Republicans unexpectedly called a meeting of a conference committee, changed the law so it would not require a quorum, and hurried it through the Senate. A day later, it passed in the Assembly.

Judge Sumi was first appointed to the court in 1998 by Tommy Thompson, a Republican former governor, then elected in 1999 and 2005. Judicial elections are nonpartisan in Wisconsin."

[szh]

Sorry, I totally disagree with the judge's actions. She has no business interfering in the passing of the laws - her job is to enforce whatever the legislature passes - good or bad.

Separately, the "out of state" disappearing actions of the Democrats was totally unacceptable. Regardless of whether each and every one of them opposed the bill in consideration, their cowardly actions in running away and hiding from a legal voting process were not what I would possibly want from elected officials. Losing should be done gracefully and not with a pout ... these childish actions deserved to be given the short shrift.

In particular, these words at that link you mention ...

“Republicans have engaged in extraordinary procedural shenanigans to try to advance their assault on the rights of Wisconsin’s middle class and working families,” said Mark Miller, a Democratic leader in the State Senate.

... absolutely infuriate me! The Democrat cowardly shenanigans in running away from their responsibility and their jobs is the real problem. In business, they would be fired from their jobs. In politics, I guess, all such BS is par for the course.

Z

[C-Kwik]

Sorry, I totally disagree with the judge's actions. She has no business interfering in the passing of the laws - her job is to enforce whatever the legislature passes - good or bad.

Separately, the "out of state" disappearing actions of the Democrats was totally unacceptable. Regardless of whether each and every one of them opposed the bill in consideration, their cowardly actions in running away and hiding from a legal voting process were not what I would possibly want from elected officials. Losing should be done gracefully and not with a pout ... these childish actions deserved to be given the short shrift.

In particular, these words at that link you mention ...

“Republicans have engaged in extraordinary procedural shenanigans to try to advance their assault on the rights of Wisconsin’s middle class and working families,” said Mark Miller, a Democratic leader in the State Senate.

... absolutely infuriate me! The Democrat cowardly shenanigans in running away from their responsibility and their jobs is the real problem. In business, they would be fired from their jobs. In politics, I guess, all such BS is par for the course.

Z

The politicians you question are standing up for those that put them in office. The idea is similar to a strike. Except, they can't do it outside the courthouse as they can apparently be detained and forced to appear in order to vote. Its kind of appropriate, in fact, that this group, despite being in the minority in the vote, displayed the power a group has by protesting as a group rather than as individuals. It surely put pressure on the Republicans and brought national attention to the issue.

Consider the ramifications of what this bill represents. Their absence in the state was really their only play in the face of a rather significant bill that undermines one side's right to negotiate. Its like telling a boxer he has to fight with his hands tied behind his back. If you want to label anyone cowardly, try taking a look at the guy trying to change the rules of a fight so his opponent can't hit back...

As for the judge, if there is any validity to the claim that the Republicans tried to ignore procedural rules, would the judge not be enforcing that aspect of the law?

[donandal]

Well, as Obama says... elections have consequences... hopefully the republicans who won the election
will simply re-pass this bill if the judge interferes with the election's consequences

[telcoman]

Well, as Obama says... elections have consequences... hopefully the republicans who won the election
will simply re-pass this bill if the judge interferes with the election's consequences

The judge issued the injunction because the republicans failed to follow proper meeting notification rules.

Now that the Wisconsin voters realize how they have been scammed by the republicans they may very well vote them out of office.

Telcoman

[donandal]

If they did regain control, I guess you would support the republicans leaving the state to stop votes they disagree with...
It's interesting how much effort dems put into thwarting the will of the people

[telcoman]

If they did regain control, I guess you would support the republicans leaving the state to stop votes they disagree with...
It's interesting how much effort dems put into thwarting the will of the people

The original dispute was over a budget problem.
The state workers agreed to concessions.
The republicans then refused to accept the union concessions and are attempting to destroy over 80 years of collective bargaining.

[donandal]

so you would support the republicans if they chose to leave the state for votes they disagree with

[szh]

so you would support the republicans if they chose to leave the state for votes they disagree with

He isn't going to answer the question - no matter how often you ask it.

Amazing how little liberals like to look at their own actions.

Z

[telcoman]

so you would support the republicans if they chose to leave the state for votes they disagree with

Of course!
The few republicans that are going to be left after the next election (now that the voters are wise to what the republicans really want to do), it is not going to matter.
You can only fool people some of the time.
You can't fool all the people all of the time.

[szh]

I stand corrected - you did answer.

However, unlike you, I would be equally opposed to have the Republicans leave the state to avoid casting a vote.

That is not what I want or expect from my elected officials. If someone cannot do their job, resign and let someone get it done.

Z

[telcoman]

I stand corrected - you did answer.

However, unlike you, I would be equally opposed to have the Republicans leave the state to avoid casting a vote.

That is not what I want or expect from my elected officials. If someone cannot do their job, resign and let someone get it done.

Z

Whether it is politics or collective bargaining, compromise usually works.

In Scott Walkers case he refused to compromise so the dems left for awhile.

You do what you gotta do

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/apps/pbc ... orums|news

[R/T Hemi]

We had an unresponsive governor in California a few years ago. We recalled him and send him packing. He didn't believe it would happen. I smiled for weeks.

[donandal]

Yet another democrat ( Grey Davis) that wouldn't do what the people wanted

[szh]

Whether it is politics or collective bargaining, compromise usually works.

In Scott Walkers case he refused to compromise so the dems left for awhile.

You do what you gotta do

You are totally wrong here - regardless of whether it is a Democrat or Republican issue at hand.

Politicians do not have that luxury of ignoring their job (unlike people like you and I who can choose to do business or not with anybody we agree or disagree with).

With elected officials, whose job it is to vote on topics brought before them, it is their specific responsibility to cast their votes in a timely and correct manner.

And, yes, prior to the vote, they are free to try to convince the body of their viewpoint as much as they can, but once the voting is over, the outcome is what it is!

If that outcome is not what they want, they can continue to submit additional legislation to try and get it changed.

Z

[srellim234]

We had an unresponsive governor in California a few years ago. We recalled him and send him packing. He didn't believe it would happen. I smiled for weeks.

It was an expensive, pointless exercise that has accomplished virtually nothing compared to just finishing out his term. The people running the show are the political parties in the legislature and both are still there.

[AZhitman]

You can only fool people some of the time.
You can't fool all the people all of the time.

...but you can fool Howie damn near every time.

[AZhitman]

We had an unresponsive governor in California a few years ago. We recalled him and send him packing. He didn't believe it would happen. I smiled for weeks.

The lefty? That was 2003 - more than "a few years ago".

His replacement wasn't much better (RINO).

[IBCoupe]

Z, what the Democrats in Wisconsin did was legal. It wasn't unprecedented, and it was ballsy. I support what they did as an act of protest by the representatives of a currently relatively powerless group of Wisconsans.

Compare that to another beleaguered political group: Republicans in the Senate from 2008 to 2010, who never actually filibustered. Democrats should have grown a pair and called them on that crap.

[szh]

Z, what the Democrats in Wisconsin did was legal. It wasn't unprecedented, and it was ballsy. I support what they did as an act of protest by the representatives of a currently relatively powerless group of Wisconsans.

I am not saying that it was illegal. But it was a major failure to do the job that they were elected, and paid, to do.

By not voting, they are failing to do their job. This is not the way that government and elected officials should act.

In politics, if you lose, you lose - fair and square. Deal with the outcome honestly and try to change the laws you disagree with by introducing new bills - not by sitting on your hands and pouting in the distance.

Franky, if I were a Wisconsin tax-payer, and, thus a vested "owner" or "stockholder" of the Wisconsin legislature (a stretched analogy, I grant you), I would ask for them to be fired and replaced by people who can do the work.

Z

[szh]

Maybe Obama should declare the Governor of Wisconsin a "despot" and classify the runaway Democrats as "rebels".

And since the despot is hurting his people (all those people in the unions without collective bargaining rights - a fundamental right of Democracy, gasp!), he can then call in USAF air strikes to take out the Wisconsin National Guard and "force" the people of Wisconsin to make the Governor resign!

Then Democracy, and the Will of the Majority, will have been instilled in Wisconsin, they can elect a new Governor and the politicians can get back to their job of making new laws ... uh ... wait ... what?

Sigh ...

Z

[C-Kwik]

I am not saying that it was illegal. But it was a major failure to do the job that they were elected, and paid, to do.

By not voting, they are failing to do their job. This is not the way that government and elected officials should act.

The people in the unions that voted for these representatives might disagree. And a lack of action on the part of these representatives may have instilled a feeling among their voters that their actions were underwhelming had they not taken such actions.

[audtatious]

Interesting judge.

The judges son, Jake Sinderbrand, works for the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

lolz

[szh]

I am not saying that it was illegal. But it was a major failure to do the job that they were elected, and paid, to do.

By not voting, they are failing to do their job. This is not the way that government and elected officials should act.

The people in the unions that voted for these representatives might disagree. And a lack of action on the part of these representatives may have instilled a feeling among their voters that their actions were underwhelming had they not taken such actions.

Sorry ... still does not make it right. I hold elected officials to better standards than that.

So, I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

Z

[szh]

Interesting judge.

The judges son, Jake Sinderbrand, works for the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

lolz

Figures!

The judge needs to recuse herself due to a clear conflict of interest!

Z

[telcoman]

Interesting judge.

The judges son, Jake Sinderbrand, works for the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

lolz

Figures!

The judge needs to recuse herself due to a clear conflict of interest!

Z

Perhaps you should go argue the case

How is that a conflict of interest?

So Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame worked undercover for the CIA while Bush was in office

That only became a problem when Joe confirmed that the WMD was bulls#it and is wifes cover was exposed by Scooter Libby.

WTF does the judges son's employment have to do with anything?
Please supply a source of that information not that that alone has anything to do with the judges decision

Lets be clear here.

The meeting notification rules were not followed and the judge issued an injunction.

Where is the problem?

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Where was the problem when Democrats demanded that Clarence Thomas recuse himself from anything to do with Obamacare or other similar instances?

Goose, meet gander.

Sux when you have your own feces slung back in your faces?

[AZhitman]

The judge needs to recuse herself due to a clear conflict of interest!

Perhaps you should go argue the case

How is that a conflict of interest?

THIS should be good.

Hey Howie: You forgot to say something stupid about Z being from "the boonies", since he's a Pakistani living in Northern California.