Currently viewing the tag: "Order"

Jessica Arp, a reporter for WISC- TV in Madison Wis., tweets that a judge has issued a restraining order against the recently passed bill killing public employee bargaining rights. Here are her tweets:

news3jessica Jessica Arp Sumi: I am issuing restraining order halting implementation of this act.

news3jessica Jessica Arp TRO will block publication of law, until further order of court. DOJ asks for a stay, denied. 

news3jessica Jessica Arp Sumi: how can a minor detail like mtg notice stop bill? Answer is, it is not minor.


Tagged with:

You absolutely have to admire the Left for sheer gall.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, sued to block the new Wisconsin budget fix law and got a restraining order out of Judge Sumi, likewise a Democrat.She said that while the order blocks the law’s publication, she said she has no authority to prevent the Legislature from voting on the controversial bill again.

“I am now issuing a restraining order preventing further implementation of this act,” she said.

And you’ll love the rationale.

Ozanne sued on the basis of Wisconsin’s ‘open meeting’ law, complaining that the law was violated because the State Senate’s Democrats weren’t present..and never mind that the reason they weren’t present is because they fled in a body to Illinois to block the vote on the bill!

Attorneys for the state Department of Justice asked the judge for a stay of the order, but Sumi denied the request.

The judge said that she wasn’t weighing the purpose of law in issuing the order, rather the procedure.

“What I want to make clear is I make no judgments on merit of legislation,” she said.

Oh no, of course she wasn’t. This is the equivalent of freeing an arsonist out of pity because he burned his own house down.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said the State DOJ intends to appeal the judge’s ruling, according to a statement released by his office.

“The Legislature and the governor, not a single Dane County Circuit Court judge, are responsible for the enactment of laws,” Van Hollen was quoted as saying.

Van Hollen argued that the state Supreme Court has made it clear that judges can’t stop the secretary of state from publishing a law or be stopped when the claim pertains to a rule of legislative procedure.

Judge Sumi’s ruling was designed to stop the law from being formally published, because the bill can’t take effect until then. And Wisconsin’s Democrat secretary of state said he plans to wait the full 10 days allowed to publish it March 25.

Since the judge’s decision is considered “not final,” DOJ officials are going to have to go to the Appellate Court to appeal the judge’s ruling, which they plan on filing on Monday.

Will of the people? Abiding by the results of elections? Why do that when you can go to some Democrat appointed judge and wage lawfare on behalf of your campaign donor base?

please donate…it helps me write more gooder!


Tagged with:

Via the Journal SentinelDane County judge halts collective bargaining law.  The issue at hand would is the method by which the bill was passed":

Sumi’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state’s open meetings law.

Sumi said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.

"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting  law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," she said.

The AP further explains:

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order, which was requested by that county’s District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat. Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin’s open meetings law. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure and Walker signed it last week.

Outside the Beltway

Tagged with:

A Wisconsin judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the bill stripping state employee unions of their collective bargaining rights.

The decision, issued by Judge Maryann Sumi of the Dane County Circuit Court, temporarily bars Wisconsin’s secretary of state from publishing the controversial law, one of the procedural requirements for it to come into effect in the state. Publication had been expected late next week, but Judge Sumi’s ruling delays that until at least March 29, when she plans to hold a full hearing on a lawsuit that questions the validity of the collective bargaining law based on the speedy manner in which it was carried out earlier this month. An appeal is possible even before then. Opponents of the measure said they hoped the decision was but the first of many that would ultimately undo a measure that has split the state and has drawn tens of thousands of demonstrators to the state capital over a matter of many weeks. Supporters of the measure, however, said that the judge’s decision was merely a blip, certain to be overturned as various legal efforts make their way fully through the court system.

The bill was signed by Gov. Scott Walker last Friday.

Joe. My. God.

Tagged with:

The latest in Wisconsin:

A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday blocking the state’s new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect, a measure that drew tens of thousands of protesters to the state Capitol and sent some Democrats fleeing to Illinois in an tempt to block a vote on it.

The judge’s order is a major setback for Walker and puts the future of the law in question.

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order, which was requested by that county’s District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat. Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin’s open meetings law.

Add to Twitter
Add to Facebook
Email this Article
Add to digg
Add to
Add to Google
Add to StumbleUpon

Ben Smith’s Blog

Tagged with:

A Wisconsin judge just issued an order temporarily blocking Gov. Scott Walker’s assault on collective bargaining rights from going into effect:

Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order to temporarily block the law as Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne had requested as part of his lawsuit.

Ozanne filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Republican legislative leaders of violating Wisconsin’s open meetings law during the rushed run-up to a Senate vote on the measure last week.

Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a political stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin’s open meetings law. The Republican majority voted last week to pass the legislation without Senate Democrats, who had left the state to block just such a vote. Gov. Scott Walker signed it into law last week.

Today’s decision is only a temporary order suspending the law until the judge has more time to consider the case, but it will “prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law — and allowing it to take effect — until [the judge] can rule on the merits of the case.” That could be quite some time, as Ozanne plans to call as many as 20 witnesses and supporters of the law will likely want to present their own evidence in response.

As ThinkProgress previously explained, a Wisconsin judge has the power to invalidate government business which takes place in violation of the state’s open meetings law. While today’s order is only temporary, it buys time for supporters of workers rights in Wisconsin to present their arguments to the court and to gather additional protesters if the Wisconsin GOP attempts to repass the law with proper notice.


Tagged with:


Opponents of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s bill recasting negotiating rights for the state’s public-employee unions won a round in court today — and the judge hinted that they have a strong chance of winning overall.  Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order blocking publication of the budget-repair bill, instructing the Secretary of State to [...]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

Tagged with:

A Dane County judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Wisconsin budget repair bill that severely limits collective bargaining by public-sector unions.

Governor Scott Walker surely won’t back down.

Technorati tags:

Marathon Pundit

Tagged with:

This is a cross post from the Wisconsin State Journal

A Dane County judge Friday issued a temporary order blocking implementation of Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial measure limiting collective bargaining rights for public employees, saying a legislative committee likely violated the state Open Meetings Law when it rushed passage of the bill March 9.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order around 10:30 a.m. in a lawsuit brought by Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.

The ruling bars Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law, the last step before it can take effect. La Follette had planned to publish the law on March 25, which would cause it to take effect the following day.

Walker, who signed the bill last week, had asked La Follette to publish it sooner. But La Follette said he saw no urgency to move the law ahead and wanted to give legal challenges a chance to run their course.


Tagged with:


The healing begins. The top GOP leader in the state Senate backtracked Tuesday, saying Republicans would lift fines and a contempt finding against Democrats - a move that will allow Democrats to vote in committee and may begin to heal wounds between the two parties… “The name of the game is moving this state forward, [...]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

Tagged with:

Out next month: The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution by Francis Fukuyama.

The New York Times notes that while few people have yet read the book “it has created a considerable stir in universities” where Fukuyama, who is also the author of The End of History and the Last Man, has talked about it.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire

Tagged with:


Saint Patrick was a gentleman,
Who through strategy and stealth,
Drove all the snakes from Ireland,
Here’s a toasting to his health.
But not too many toastings
Lest you lose yourself and then
Forget the good Saint Patrick
                       And see all those snakes again.

Matty O’Blackfive here blogging from the fine establishment of Grace O’Malley’s to discuss a religious holiday.  Not only is Ms. O’Malley’s one of my favorite pubs in Chicago, Gracie was pirate, too! 

Ah, but on to a favorite topic of mine - St. Patrick’s Day.   *sigh*  Glorious St. Patrick’s Day…

Yeah, I know I’ll get some comments that St. Patrick’s Day in New York, Boston or Chicago brings out the worst amateur drinkers known to man. And that maybe true, but I don’t let ‘em spoil a fine holiday.  Why should you?

I still love it here in Chicago the most.  Sure Boston and New York have good celebrations.  But in Chicago, we dye our river Green.  Beat that, Boston!  Here’s a picture from a live blogcast of St. Paddy’s Day three years ago just two blocks from my humble home (the Sun Times building is now gone being replaced by the Trump Tower).



Hell, we Irish would celebrate Spleen Day with a Harp or Guinness if such a day existed. *raises glass to Spleens everywhere* (guy next to me mutters something about knowing a helluva spleen and raises his glass…)

So look for more on the holiday about St. Patrick - the patron saint of…Guinness! - in the coming days.


Tagged with:

For weeks the discussion among talking heads and columnists has been  about a “looming” government shutdown. Then, last week, our elected officials gave us, through yet another Continuing Resolution (CR), another two weeks to debate a budget for the year that is already half gone. Is it any wonder that Congress is held in such low esteem?  Both parties correctly claim that a shutdown was never the objective and, in truth, it was not.  A shutdown is simply the necessary consequence of a failure by Congress to authorize an appropriation of federal expenditures.  In and of itself, a shutdown doesn’t save money . . . it simply postpones spending until the Congress finally agrees to a compromise plan and the President signs it into law.

The current spending stalemate is, in reality, the most important domestic congressional legislative battle in at least a half century because the different governing philosophies of the two major parties, as crystallized by the results of the 2010 Congressional elections, have come into sharp relief.  After the Democratic sweep in 2008 and their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, the new majority embarked on the most major federal spending binge in U.S. history and increased our annual budget deficit to $ 1.3 trillion and the accumulated national debt to $ 14 trillion with no discernable benefit to the nation.  The Obama promise that the unemployment rate would fall was vastly wrong. As everyone now understands, it actually increased.

During 2010, the electorate’s focus shifted to the risks to this nation of continuing to incur unsustainable debt at the federal and local levels, (witness the threat of national bankruptcies throughout the Euro zone), the increased threat of inflation, and the consequences of the loss of international confidence in the U.S. dollar and U.S. debt obligations. Currently, a dollar will buy 1/1400thof one ounce of gold which means that gold (as good a measure as we have of how investors value our currency) has increased 60% in dollar terms since Mr. Obama took office.  For the first time in a long time politicians focused the public’s attention on the need for austerity and a smaller and less intrusive role for government in our lives.  The rise of a faction of fiscal conservatives loosely affiliated in what is called the Tea Party (albeit not really a party) provided much of the energy for a seismic congressional shift in November, providing the Republicans with a large majority in the House of Representatives.  These freshman congressmen, of course, know they are serving on borrowed time, and that if they don’t deliver real progress on their promises to balance expenditures with income along with far less debt, their constituents will recall them faster than one can say “you’re outta here.”

Because the last Congress failed to present (let alone enact) a budget for the government’s fiscal year commencing October 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2011, the Congress has until now been deferring a final budget (relying instead on so‑called Continuing Resolutions (CR’s) to permit spending to continue at the 2010 fiscal year level.  The current CR was to expire on March 4, but was replaced with another two week CR after which it will be illegal to spend money without either an approved budget or yet another CR. This is how our government has functioned for the past year. You can’t make this sort of thing up.

Once the GOP controlled House of Representatives took office in January 2011, the new majority made it clear that any appropriations for the remaining portion of the current fiscal year would be based not on the 2010 fiscal year (estimated at $ 3.5 trillion), but on the 2008 fiscal year of $ 2.9 trillion.  The Republicans are resolute on this point because spending at 2010 levels would “bake” into the budget the highest baseline in U.S. history.  Basing budget cuts on the 2008 fiscal year baseline, they propose to cut $ 74 billion in the current fiscal year which is already five months old.  Seventy specific cuts were identified including $ 58 billion in non‑security discretionary spending reductions.

This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road.  Who will blink?  We have written repeatedly about the danger the nation faces, perhaps in the not too distant future, of the dollar being supplanted as the mechanism for pricing commodities (which has given us substantial advantages since we don’t have to convert the under‑valued greenback to euros or yen or some combination of currencies).  Loss of confidence in creditors’ willingness to be paid in our fiat money would result in major negative upheaval in our economic fortunes.  Make no mistake.  This is not just an ordinary political catfight.  The outcome will determine whether America is serious about getting its fiscal house in order.

For the Democrats, everything is at stake.  This is the fiscal equivalent of the battle of Waterloo and to lose it could, indeed, be their Waterloo,  and signal a reversal of their 80 year effort to have government further intrude into every nook and cranny of the economy and our private lives.  Today’s Democratic statists do not seem to understand that this country was built and prospered on a philosophy of individual enterprise, individual decision-making, and the consequent risks and rewards of that system.  The people are angry and will not be pacified by Democrats pointing to Wall Street greed and Republicans inveighing against government incompetence. The people want common sense action.  Spendthrifts are out of fashion either on Main Street, Wall Street or Capitol Hill.  That is why such a political battle is being waged at the state level as well as in Washington (see last week’s essay).  Wisconsin is seen all over the country as a microcosm of the nation.

The Republicans have no easy task ahead.  They cannot rely on the 2010 election results as proof that the public will support austerity.  There is a major difference between voting on a somewhat abstract concept and being faced with reductions to one’s own favorite program.  Iowa farmers will fight bitterly to maintain corn subsidies for ethanol despite the unchallengeable proof that the ethanol program hasn’t made any real dent in America’s reliance on imported oil, is wasteful of energy, is causing a terrible misallocation of resources, and, in fact, is largely responsible for the substantial increase in the price of food.   Clean coal advocates, and green zealots will scream bloody murder if a single dollar is diverted from their pet wind and solar agendas.  The list goes on and on.

That is why the GOP must lead carefully and frame both the budget debate and the budget itself to everyone’s economic well being.  The people understand, perhaps as never before, that progress,toward a balanced budget is also progress toward the long‑term growth, job production and prosperity for which everyone yearns.  Framing the debate around bean counting will not work.  In our view, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker failed to make that case during his recent appearance on Meet the Press.  He simply allowed union busting charges to go unanswered instead of carefully showing the difference between public and private sector unions.  He missed an opportunity to point out that federal workers have no right to bargain over benefit and pension programs.

That same day however, New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, made a far better explanation on Face the Nation when he noted that the issue isn’t about laying off teachers, but rather whether teachers should be retained based on their quality rather than their tenure.

The left will try to frame the debate around anecdotal stories (e.g., “grandma” freezing in her unheated home or children not getting their school lunch during the period the government is shuttered).  In short, the GOP cannot rely on an appeal to austerity. They must build their case as being necessary for the long‑term betterment of the country.  In 2008, the GOP ‘s base year for their budget, America maintained a safety net for those in need, and no one is proposing it be stripped away.

As Fred Barnes put it in his op‑ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on February 27:

“Republicans will need to organize far more support for cuts¾high profile, high decibel support¾than they have.  They must be persuasive in countering the Democratic argument that preserving individual programs is more critical to the well‑being of Americans than is rolling back overall spending to keep the country from decline.  And like Reagan, they must sound positive and upbeat to offset the nation’s anxious mood . . . And their message is critical.  Bragging about painful but necessary cuts to Medicare scares people.  Stressing the goal of saving Medicare won’t.  Talking about the need for austerity is a loser.  The idea here is to produce prosperity.  Pain isn’t the issue, relief is.”

There is a precedent here.  In 1995 the Congress and President Clinton reached a spending impasse and many government operations were shuttered for 20 days.  The Democrats and many pundits claim that the shutdown was forced by then Speaker Gingrich who, by overplaying his hand, brought about Mr. Clinton’s reelection in 1996.  It is also true, that Mr. Gingrich was perceived as arrogant and that shifted public opinion to the Democrats in 1996.  Surely Speaker Boehner and the House Republican majority should take pains to keep the focus on the need to control spending to ensure our nation’s economic health and maintain our world leadership.

However, it is just as likely that Mr. Clinton’s reelection was the result of his political adroitness in moving to the center, something Mr. Obama seems not to appreciate.  Mr. Clinton’s famous phrase in his 1996 State of the Union speech that “the era of big government is over” more likely resulted in his reelection than the 1995 government shutdown.

As these interesting days unfold, the focus of our attention should be less on whether some government services need to be suspended for a short period of time and more on whether Republicans can follow up their historic election victory in 2008 with a convincing case that  sound governance and fiscal responsibility are necessary to rescue America’s economic fortunes.  They can expect salvo after salvo of incoming fire from the big spending statists. Paraphrasing Harry Truman’s plainly spoken admonition, if they aren’t prepared for a hot fire fight, they should have stayed out of the kitchen.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

Big Government

Tagged with:

Sean Motley at BG makes a good point:

So if the danger to the Internet remains so looming and dire, and required so dictatorial a move to address it as was December’s unauthorized Web commandeering  – why more than two months later has the Chairman still not filed his Net Neutrality order with the federal registry – which is required to begin its implementation?

I suspect this is just having fun with statistics, but it may also play into the delay:

95 Congressional candidates signed a pro-Net Neutrality pledge – and all 95 lost in November.

Read the rest here.

Liberty Pundits Blog

Tagged with:

Yesterday, I posted over at Opinio Juris some initial reactions to the Executive Order the President issued creating a new periodic review system for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. After reading some of the other reactions circulating in the ether yesterday, I don’t think I’ve seen anything that leads me to change that account. But there are several apparent misperceptions out there I think warrant correction.

First is the notion – captured by the Washington Post’s lead article on the order – that the executive order somehow creates a new “formal system of indefinite detention” for the Guantanamo detainees. (Ditto Dafna Linzer, among others.) The order I think is about as clear as it could be that it is being issued pursuant to existing authorities, most notably the statutory Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), and is not intended to and should not be read to alter the scope of detention authority available under that statute as interpreted by the courts. Again, the key language from the order: “It does not create any additional or separate source of detention authority, and it does not affect the scope of detention authority under existing law. Detainees at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and nothing in this order is intended to affect the jurisdiction of Federal courts to determine the legality of their detention.” Why do I raise this? It’s not because I am a great proponent of the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the AUMF. On the contrary, that court basically ignored what guidance international law does offer and otherwise I think found a degree of detention authority under the AUMF broader than what one could plausibly (or wisely) attribute to statute. But the suggestion that yesterday’s order is supposed to broaden that already broad grant of congressional/judicial detention authority, or is somehow supposed to reset the litigation clock back to zero on what the scope of that detention authority should be – is simply not supported by the text of the order.

Second is the effort I’ve seen by some to compare the procedures for review made available under this new executive order to the procedures available under the Bush-era Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), a predecessor review process that the Supreme Court rejected as an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus review in U.S. federal court. Such comparisons miss the point. These procedures are not meant to replace any earlier approach; they exist only in the shadow of what substantially greater review today already exists for the Guantanamo detainees through the federal courts. As yesterday’s executive order notes, these new review procedures are to exist in addition to the habeas review that the Supreme Court recognized as mandated by the Constitution and that is already available to the Guantanamo detainees. Before yesterday’s order, detainees had essentially one shot to challenge the legality of their ongoing detention through the federal habeas process. If they lost in the D.C. district court and/or at the D.C. Circuit court on appeal, they had exhausted their potential avenues for review. This gives detainees another bite at the apple. As I noted yesterday, this is hardly to say it resolves all the many problems associated with the status quo at Guantanamo Bay. But are the detainees better off today than they were before the order was issued yesterday? Hard to see how the answer isn’t at least marginally yes.

Probably most unfortunate about the reporting so far is that it obscures (in lower paragraphs at best) what has been and remains the single greatest obstacle to the closure, or even amelioration of the situation, at Guantanamo: Congress. In 2008, both presidential candidates and their parties embraced the need to move toward closing the detention facility. In 2008, efforts by Congress even to conduct hearings into detention-related matters were still met with the criticism by some that Congress was interfering in matters properly left to the executive branch. Since then, Congress has become engaged up to its eyeballs in micromanaging the executive’s handling of a handful of detainees, and is otherwise devoting its Guantanamo-related energy to preventing the President from bringing criminal charges in our own courts against men who the President and Congress believe have committed crimes. We are through the looking glass.

Going forward, what I’d be most interested to read is some investigative analysis of how it is this dramatic change occurred. And some strategic thinking about how one might go about changing it back.


Tagged with: