Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Judge tells Scott Walker to follow her rulings or else

By Doug Thompson
March 30, 2011

Protests against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

Dane County, Wisconsin Judge Maryann Sumi issued a stern warning to out-of-control governor Scott Walker and the lemming-like Republicans who follow him: Obey the court or their ass is grass.

Sumi obviously didn’t like Walker’s attempt to circumvent her injunction blocking implementation of his efforts to strip the state’s public employee unions of collective bargaining rights so she clarified her position Tuesday in a stinging rebuke of the governor and the Legislative Reference Bureau, which published the law last Friday and gave Walker an excuse to try and implement in violation of the court ruling.

Sumi lashed out, saying “apparently that language [in the ruling] was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation [of the collective-bargaining bill] was enjoined. That is now what I want to make crystal clear.”

Sumi warned Walker and his fellow Republicans that “willful defiance of a court order” will subject them to sanctions from the court.

Legislative Reference Bureau head Stephen Miller testified at the Tuesday hearing and said he felt his agency could publish laws without the approval of the Secretary of State, which he did with Walker’s union busting legislation.  Under cross examination, however, Miller admitted the agency had never done so in the past, suggesting he caved under pressure from the governor and GOP legislators.

So Sumi expanded her ruling to specifically prohibit the Secretary of State from publishing the law in a state newspaper — the final step needed for the bill to become enforceable.  A follow-up hearing is set for Friday.

What we have here is another example of Republican arrogance when it comes to imposing the GOP’s repressive political agenda on others. They don’t give a damn about the law, as George W. Bush proved with the many criminal acts of his administration, including the launching of an illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

Walker has become a hero of the GOP, which embraces sleazeballs, hacks and extremists as stars and uses them to con a gullible public that — incredibly — believes these scam artists actually care about them.

In reality, the GOP severs only the uber-rich and the rabid right-wing. They don’t give a damn about ordinary Americans and they haven’t for a long time now.

Walker, however, is not backing down. His aide, Mike Huebsch, in a prepared statement, says “we will continue to confer with our legal counsel and have more information about how to move forward in the near future.”

In other words, they will continue to look for ways to circumvent the court and try to find a way to proceed. Like Bush, Walker’s creed is “damn the law, full speed ahead.”

Just the kind of corrupt, morally-corrupt type of politician that Republicans so often embrace.

Enhanced by Zemanta

18 Responses to Judge tells Scott Walker to follow her rulings or else

  1. griff

    March 30, 2011 at 9:45 pm

    Endless war. Jobless recovery? Print, print, print…Money. Welfare. Warfare. Protecting the Homeland.

    From what? Cave-dwellers? Evil-doers? Ourselves?

    Government?!

    No jobs. No money.

    Big screen TV? Check! Cheaper than ever.

    Food?

    Fuel?

    More expensive than ever. Almost, granted. Wait ’til summer.

    Greed. Corruption. Every where.

    Democrat? Savior.

    Republican? The same.

    Next in line…

  2. Almandine

    March 30, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    What we have here is a tribute to class warfare. Ugly Republicans, elected partisans unto themselves, waging representative battle against somewhere around 100K “ordinary Americans” (read Democrat union members) in Wisconsin, whose legitimacy apparently stands in stark superiority to that of the other “ordinary Americans” (read 2 or 3 million citizen taxpayers) of Wisconsin, are unethical. Union tactics are unassailable.

    One wonders how and why the Life, Liberty, and Property of those taxpaying citizens in Wisconsin is less valuable than that of the unionized. One also wonders how it is that website proudly proclaiming devotion to protection of such a libertarian ideal can choose sides in such a conundrum.

    Mere methodological tactics cannot be enough, as there is plenty enough hokum on all sides to go around.

    • griff

      March 30, 2011 at 10:33 pm

      I have a customer, a big whig at the VA.

      During the midterms I did some work at his house, and noticed a plethora of signs in his yard supporting the incumbent Democrat which, to his credit, did his best to listen to his constituents.

      But he screwed up on Abamacare, and was ousted in November.

      We talk politics a little. He’s a Vietnam vet, so I have a great deal of respect for him. A medic.

      When I voiced my opinion on him, he simply said that he supports him because he didn’t look forward to “training” a new guy.

      ‘Nuf said.

  3. Jon

    March 30, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Joe Bageant, RIP.

    It is a class war. But both the Republicans and the Democrats are on the same side.

    The union members? Not so much.

    See what’s left of http://www.joebageant.com

    And finally, to address a specific point: I don’t think this website is libertarian. You might be – but I don’t think it is.

    J.

    • Almandine

      March 30, 2011 at 10:59 pm

      Read the slogan on the masthead.

    • Almandine

      March 30, 2011 at 11:27 pm

      And I didn’t say it was a Libertarian website… especially lately, I said it proclaimed a Libertarian ideal.

  4. Jon

    March 30, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    Um, no. No.

    A class war isn’t the same thing. Look at, if you will, the French revolution. They were also in a class war, and guess which side the entire government was on? See pretty much any violent revolution, and you’ll see a class war with the government almost entirely on one side.

    And they are *NOT* seeking to throw out government entirely. They never were. They’re trying to replace the government they have with one that suits themselves somewhat better.

    The slogan atop the site says (imho) that the government we have is corrupt. This cannot be equated to the Libertarian ideal that no (or even less) government is better.

    It is not a libertarian slogan.

    Sorry.

    J.

    PS – In fact, if you want to deal with a corrupt government, the solution is to govern the government, not disband it. Baby, meet bathwater. J.

    • Almandine

      March 31, 2011 at 12:07 am

      No, no, no… it says not that govt is corrupt, just that it always wants more than you have to give. But, if you don’t give, it will take it anyway.

      As for class war, per your idea… govt only on one side… what can be said about govt that takes bounty only from about half its citizens to support the other half who float?

      Libertarians don’t necessarily want zero govt, just the amount of govt that needs to be paid for. Mostly defense… not offense.

    • Almandine

      March 31, 2011 at 12:18 am

      And where was disbanding govt mentioned?

      • Jon

        March 31, 2011 at 12:20 am

        By Grover Norquist, who “wanted to get government small enough to drown in a bathtub”. What was left to the implications was that once that was achieved, he would simply do so.

        • Almandine

          March 31, 2011 at 12:49 am

          My name ain’t grover. Don’t fight with him in retorts to me.

          • Jon

            March 31, 2011 at 2:49 am

            He’s a Libertarian. You’re a Libertarian. If you don’t want to be tarred with the same brush, pick a differently-named philosophy.

            J.

            • Almandine

              March 31, 2011 at 9:35 am

              And why in God’s – or Grover’s – name would I listen to you tell me how and what to think?

              Don’t bother.

  5. Jon

    March 31, 2011 at 12:16 am

    No again.

    By definition, taxation is a percentage. A fraction, a percentage less than 100. So no. They can’t take more than what you have to give.

    But as for what the slogan means, perhaps we should defer to Mr. Thompson. He wrote it, after all.

    And what can be said about that government? It takes from those who can, and gives to those who can’t. That’s fundamental humanity, and I happen to be somewhat fond if it. I like being a human being.

    Robin Hood is a hero, not a villain.

    And like cars, the more you pay for government, the better one you’re likely to get.

    J.

    • Almandine

      March 31, 2011 at 12:25 am

      I said they WANT more than you have… thus, our govt being trillions in debt more than we had to give. And why, govt as humanity? No, theft… far beyond its humanitarian urge to help the afflicted of whatever stripe – vote buying of high order. Much like education, more bucks does not equal better outcomes.

      At least you’ve come clean on being among the needy.

    • Almandine

      March 31, 2011 at 12:58 am

      Taxation: (From Wiki) A tax may be defined as a “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative authority.”[1] A tax “is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority” and is “any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.”[1]

      One over one (equals one) is a fraction… a percentage… 100%, in fact.

      • Jon

        March 31, 2011 at 3:04 am

        What? Are you doing math with your footnote numbers? Amusing, but bizarre.

        Yes, taxes are taken by force. I thought that was obvious. It’s one of the rules for living in a civilization. Uncivilized people are imprisoned or ejected.

        J.

        PS – Yes, I happen to need a civilization. I can’t generate by myself all the power I use. I can’t build by myself all the microchips that run my computers. I hire people to do things that I either don’t have the time to do myself or don’t have the training and practice to do, and I’m happy to pay them appropriately. I could build my own car, but it’d cost a fortune and not go very fast nor handle very well. My Mercedes does both just fine.

        Yes, I need to live in a sphere that respects both basic property rights and at least kindergarten-level humanity. I’m in need. So are you, if you’d take an honest look at what civilization has done for you.

        J.

  6. Jon

    March 31, 2011 at 3:18 am

    Strictly technically, no, you don’t have to pay any taxes at all. Enjoy Cellblock D.

    J.