Tea-Publican Tyranny Continues in Wisconsin

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

It's sadly comical when Tea-Publicans talk about the "rule of law" and say that America is "a nation of laws." They only say this about laws with which they agree. Tea-Publicans are quick to dismiss the rule of law and the validity of court orders with which they disagree. Laws are for everyone else to abide by; Republicans are exempt from the rule of law. IOKIYAR.

Case in point: on March 18, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a restraining order to prevent Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing Gov. Scott Walker's so-called "budget-repair measure" rammed through the Tea-Publican Wisconsin legislature by dubious procedural irregularities. Judge Sumi made it very clear that she was blocking the further implementation of the law:

"I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the secretary of state. He is restrained and enjoined from such publication until further order of this court."

What was the Tea-Publican response to a valid court order restraining the state from publishing Gov. Scott Walker's "budget-repair measure" to deny the law from having any legal force or effect?

"In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday." Collective bargaining law published despite restraining order – JSOnline:

The measure was published to the Legislature's website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."

* * *

Laws normally take effect a day after they are published, and a top GOP lawmaker said that meant it will become law Saturday. But nonpartisan legislative officials from two agencies, including the one who published the bill, disagreed.

"I think this is a ministerial act that forwards it to the secretary of state," said Stephen Miller, director of the Legislative Reference Bureau. "I don't think this act makes it become effective. My understanding is that the secretary of state has to publish it in the (official state) newspaper for it to become effective."

* * *

It hasn't been printed in the Wisconsin State Journal, the official state newspaper, as other laws are. Late Friday, State Journal publisher Bill Johnston said in an e-mail that the notice for the law had been scheduled to run but had been canceled. He did not elaborate.

La Follette urged caution Friday, saying the measure has not been published yet by his office. He said he believes the law cannot go into effect until he directs the State Journal to publish it, which he has not done.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said it didn't matter that it hasn't appeared in the paper.

"It's published," Fitzgerald said. "It's law. That's what I contend."

The "Fabulous Fitzgerald Brothers" 'FitzWalkerstan': The Republican Brothers And The Wisconsin Showdown | TPMDC who rule Wisconsin by authoritarian fiat and disregard for the rule of law and valid court orders are, of course, WRONG.

In a memo to Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), an attorney for the nonpartisan Legislative Council said that the legislation would not become law based on Friday's action. That's because although state law provides for a separate role for both the reference bureau and the secretary of state in publishing laws, the section in state law on when legislation takes effect refers only to action by the secretary of state, the memo said.

Last Thursday, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals – without weighing in on the merits of the case – said the state Supreme Court should take up the matter. The Supreme Court has not decided whether to take jurisdiction.

Howard Schweber, a professor of political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said Friday's actions amounted to "entirely uncharted waters."

He said that the action Friday didn't remove the possibility that the Supreme Court could take up the question of the restraining order against La Follette. He questioned how the justices would react to a publication step being taken before they had made any decision.

"No matter what happens next, it's going to be one heck of a show," he said.

Also on Friday, another suit was filed over the law, bringing to three the total number of cases now pending.

Madison firefighters and public works employees filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court against Walker and the state seeking to block the law from taking effect, saying it had been passed in violation of the state constitution.

The Madison workers allege that the law treats some union workers unfairly compared with other workers. The law also violates constitutional provisions requiring that three-fifths of lawmakers be present to vote on certain financial bills, the lawsuit alleged.

We have a political party in this country, the Tea-Publicans, who believe they can rule by fiat and are exempt from the rule of law and valid court orders. That is is the very definiton of tyranny.