• Walker Administration Announces Implementation Of Anti-Union Law
    42 replies, posted
[url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/walker-administration-announces-implementation-of-anti-union-law-despite-judges-order-against-publicat.php?ref=fpb]TPM[/url] [release]The administration of Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) has begun implementing its controversial new law curtailing public employee unions, following a move on Friday declaring it be in effect, and despite a judge's ruling that enjoined said implementation. "It is now my legal responsibility to begin enactment of the law," Secretary of Administration Mike Huebsch, a former Republican state Assembly Speaker, told reporters, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Huebsch said that the state will begin withholding pension and health benefits contributions from government employees' paychecks, while also no longer automatically deducting union dues. The first paychecks to be affected will be April 21. A week and a half ago, a judge in Dane County (Madison) blocked the law on procedural grounds, ruling that a key conference committee used to advance the bill -- and to get around the state Senate Dems' walkout from the state -- had violated the state open-meetings law by failing to give proper 24-hours notice. The judge's order "restrain[ed] and enjoin[ed] the further implementation" of the law, including the prevention of Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D) from publishing the act in the Wisconsin State Journal, which acts as the state's official newspaper for the purpose of giving the public official notice of new laws -- the final step for the law to take effect. That decision is now going through an appeals process, which remains up in the air. But this past Friday, state Republicans had the bill published in a different office -- the Legislative Reference Bureau, which handles drafting and research for the legislature -- according to the LRB's statutory requirement to publish legislation within ten days of enactment. Notably, the LRB itself has said that this publication does not constitute action that would put the law into effect. But state Republican leaders, including Walker's office and the state Attorney General, say that the law is now in effect. In addition, Huebsch told reporters that the judge's ruling applied to LaFollette's office, but not to the LRB and the Department of Administration. "It's clear that for as many attorneys as you wish to ask you are going to get an opinion on this particular law and the status of it," Huebsch said, WisPolitics reports. "We have looked at the statutes and are defining them as clearly as we can as it states in the statute as to the requirements that must be met." Interestingly, Huebsch also said that if there is a court ruling to restrain the DOA from implementing the law, the changes will be undone: "If a judge or a court says otherwise that we should not continue we will make every effort to comply with that law." When asked for comment, the state Democratic Party gave TPM this comment from chairman Mike Tate: [quote]"Are there any laws that yet bind Scott Walker and the Republicans? With the arrogance of the zealot, they act as if they were laws unto themselves. Ultimately, our Constitution and our courts will protect us from their warped ideologies, but in the meantime, our democracy in Wisconsin is being flayed."[/quote][/release] [img]http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2011/02/scott-walker-new-2011-2-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg[/img] "My name is Scott Walker and I am under the delusion I am above the law."
scott walker sounds like a asshole
[url]http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=6346[/url] This is a more unbiased source!
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28868214][url]http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=6346[/url] This is a more unbiased source![/QUOTE] looking at the libtard of the week section I discovered this [img]http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/11/nancy-pelosi-on-botox-245x300.jpg[/img] Classy guy. [editline]28th March 2011[/editline] ahahaha he calls Paul McCartney a libtard what a fucking douchenozzle
This is [U][B][I]not[/I][/B][/U] going to end well. :colbert:
I hope he realizes that the restraining order Judge Sumi put against the bill is still in effect and has been since March 18th... ...the point being the state legislature, and Walker, cannot legally implement this bill into a law yet until it (the state legislature) has either reconvened and passed it correctly (rectifying the mistake it made the first time), until the restraining order has expired (it hasn't yet), OR until this has been taken to her court for proper hearings: [url]http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_9b967cde-5176-11e0-b8df-001cc4c002e0.html[/url] Hell- the restraining order in the first place barred SoS Doug La Follette from even publishing the fucking thing, as the OP article noted. It has not been implemented into law. It cannot be. Not legally, anyway. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] Seriously... what the [b]FUCK[/b].
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28868236]looking at the libtard of the week section I discovered this [img_thumb]http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/11/nancy-pelosi-on-botox-245x300.jpg[/img_thumb] Classy guy. [editline]28th March 2011[/editline] ahahaha he calls Paul McCartney a libtard what a fucking douchenozzle[/QUOTE] im fairly sure this is satire [QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28868214][url]http://angrywhitedude.com/?p=6346[/url] This is a more unbiased source![/QUOTE] my new favorite website
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;28868782]I hope he realizes that the restraining order Judge Sumi put against the bill is still in effect and has been since March 18th... ...the point being the state legislature, and Walker, cannot legally implement this bill into a law yet until it (the state legislature) has either reconvened and passed it correctly (rectifying the mistake it made the first time), until the restraining order has expired (it hasn't yet), OR until this has been taken to her court for proper hearings: [url]http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_9b967cde-5176-11e0-b8df-001cc4c002e0.html[/url] Hell- the restraining order in the first place barred SoS Doug La Follette from even publishing the fucking thing, as the OP article noted. It has not been implemented into law. It cannot be. Not legally, anyway. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] Seriously... what the [b]FUCK[/b].[/QUOTE] I guess he's following Obama's example of ignoring rulings that stall the implementation of your law.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28869102]I guess he's following Obama's example of ignoring rulings that stall the implementation of your law.[/QUOTE] I guess Bill Oreilly is following Glenn Beck's example of raping and killing a girl in 1990.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28868843]im fairly sure this is satire my new favorite website[/QUOTE] it's not satire [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;28869102]I guess he's following Obama's example of ignoring rulings that stall the implementation of your law.[/QUOTE] Obama hasn't done this.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28869102]I guess he's following Obama's example of ignoring rulings that stall the implementation of your law.[/QUOTE] I thought "obamacare" was implemented fine. [editline]28th March 2011[/editline] Some judge just happened to have a problem with it afterwards.
Glaber thinks some shithead judge from florida means the entire bill should be held off until they appeal
[QUOTE=Glaber;28869102]I guess he's following Obama's example of ignoring rulings that stall the implementation of your law.[/QUOTE] Do elaborate. I'm intrigued. :v:
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28869191]it's not satire [/QUOTE] what makes you so certain? it doesnt seem serious at all, the language he uses is too ridiculous it seems like really well written satire
[QUOTE=Glaber;28869102]I guess he's following Obama's example of ignoring rulings that stall the implementation of your law.[/QUOTE] the differences are that the "obamacare" wasn't ruled unconstitutional nor was it heavily contested after republican guttings of the bill, which I do remember you advocating for at one point I could swear, so you're aware of them. The current state of the healthcare bill is due to republican gutting of the bill and you know this. The reasons it was found unconstitutional was due to republican bill gutting. Why do you insist on doing this?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28869594]the differences are that the "obamacare" wasn't ruled unconstitutional nor was it heavily contested after republican guttings of the bill, which I do remember you advocating for at one point I could swear, so you're aware of them. The current state of the healthcare bill is due to republican gutting of the bill and you know this. The reasons it was found unconstitutional was due to republican bill gutting. Why do you insist on doing this?[/QUOTE] im glad it was found unconstitutional at the best the section that states you have to buy health care is worthless and a waste of money at the worst its tyrannical corporatism really congress shouldnt have given into the republicans whining and throwing a fit, because now they are just doing it more and will probably continue until they lose credibility in the eyes of the voters
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28869572]what makes you so certain? it doesnt seem serious at all, the language he uses is too ridiculous it seems like really well written satire[/QUOTE] I've seen people completely serious speak more crazy then him. Look at Glaber. If he's satire, he's really accurate.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;28869735]im glad it was found unconstitutional at the best the section that states you have to buy health care is worthless and a waste of money at the worst its tyrannical corporatism really congress shouldnt have given into the republicans whining and throwing a fit, because now they are just doing it more and will probably continue until they lose credibility in the eyes of the voters[/QUOTE] I'm with you on that
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28869746]I've seen people completely serious speak more crazy then him. Look at Glaber. If he's satire, he's really accurate.[/QUOTE] but glaber actually tries to make points excerpts from awd: [quote]Angry White Dude longs for a day when America can elect the best person for the job no matter what the sex or color. As long as they’re not Muslim. Or liberal. I’m joking, mostly (about the liberal part)..but we all know what libtards do in public office! It bugs me to no end to hear it’s time we elect a (put your favorite thing that is not a white male here) and Palin should be ashamed of herself![/quote] [quote]Interestingly enough, here's [b]hitlery[/b] agreeing [U][/U] with Palin on a womern president. Would Hillary count?[/quote] [quote]According to the leftard manner of PCThink (oxymoron alert), conservatives cannot have an opinion critical of anyone or thing that seeks to destroy freedom, is an enemy of America, is an enemy of Mother Nature (helloooo pooftahs!), is non-white, non-male, non-intelligent, non-well…you get the drift. If a conservative ventures his or her opinion critical of any of the above classifications, then said conservative must have a major character flaw that renders their opinion null and void. These flaws are racism, homophobia, islamophobia, sexism, and being a white dude. However, in the hierarchy of PC-Think, being a racist is the worst thing anyone can be. What, exactly, is a racist to the PC? Simple! A conservative who disagrees with a liberal.[/quote] this isnt angering or even wrong its just fucking funny as hell i cant picture anyone on this earth writing this seriously, it isnt crazy, it is packed with humor [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] hell, the tag line of the site it In defense of the most ridiculed and unappreciated being on the planet…THE WHITE MALE
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was or wasn't satire.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28869191]Obama hasn't done this.[/QUOTE] Health Care Law Florida court ruling by a [B]FEDERAL JUDGE[/B]. Administration going through with implementation even though Judge said his Ruling was just as good as an Injunction. Ringing any bells? If not review these topics: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1055332-MSNBC-Florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1058787-CNS-News-Obama-Administration-Continues-Spending-under-Unconstitutional-HC-law.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1065979-Judge-Vinson-maintains-Healthcare-law-Unconstitutional.-Gives-Obama-7-days-to-appeal.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1068018-Obama-administration-appeals-healthcare-ruling?highlight=[/url] to Discredit a Lower court that Obama ignored is to also discredit the court that walker ignored. You can't have it both ways.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28871201]Health Care Law Florida court ruling by a [B]FEDERAL JUDGE[/B]. Administration going through with implementation even though Judge said his Ruling was just as good as an Injunction. Ringing any bells? If not review these topics: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1055332-MSNBC-Florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1058787-CNS-News-Obama-Administration-Continues-Spending-under-Unconstitutional-HC-law.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1065979-Judge-Vinson-maintains-Healthcare-law-Unconstitutional.-Gives-Obama-7-days-to-appeal.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1068018-Obama-administration-appeals-healthcare-ruling?highlight=[/url] to Discredit a Lower court that Obama ignored is to also discredit the court that walker ignored. You can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE] I like how you totally disregard that it's your side's fault that it's in it's current state. But who am I kidding, It's Glaber, logic and common sense aren't on his agenda if he can fuck over the poor and stab the gays.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28871201]Health Care Law Florida court ruling by a [B]FEDERAL JUDGE[/B]. Administration going through with implementation even though Judge said his Ruling was just as good as an Injunction. Ringing any bells? If not review these topics: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1055332-MSNBC-Florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1058787-CNS-News-Obama-Administration-Continues-Spending-under-Unconstitutional-HC-law.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1065979-Judge-Vinson-maintains-Healthcare-law-Unconstitutional.-Gives-Obama-7-days-to-appeal.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1068018-Obama-administration-appeals-healthcare-ruling?highlight=[/url] to Discredit a Lower court that Obama ignored is to also discredit the court that walker ignored. You can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE] As I said, one shithead judge.
Who is at the Federal level. Just because they're a shithead doesn't mean that President can ignore a Fedreal ruling any more than Walker ignored this ruling.
By one Florida judge. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] He's kinda alone in this.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28872380]Who is at the Federal level. Just because they're a shithead doesn't mean that President can ignore a Fedreal ruling any more than Walker ignored this ruling.[/QUOTE] No, there's actually a very huge difference here
[QUOTE=Glaber;28872380]Who is at the Federal level. Just because they're a shithead doesn't mean that President can ignore a Fedreal ruling any more than Walker ignored this ruling.[/QUOTE] [img]http://oi43.tinypic.com/imt79f.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Swilly;28873669][img_thumb]http://oi43.tinypic.com/imt79f.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I think this applies to everything Glaber has ever said ever.
Glaber, in Walker's situation, his State government has passed a law that a Federal judge of his state has ruled unconstitutional, and is pushing through with it anyway. In the Obama administration's situation, the Federal government has passed a law that two federal judges affirm and one Florida judge ruled against, and the bill is not set to go into motion until quite some time has passed. If there's going to be an instance of judicial review it will happen in a higher appellate court or more likely the Supreme Court, and there's plenty of time for that to still happen. In the mean time, there is nothing similar between the behavior of the Fed and the behavior of the governor of Wisconsin.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28871950]As I said, one shithead judge.[/QUOTE] There were like 10 other shithead federal judges that ruled it constitutional. :buddy: [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] Maybe not ten, but more than one other judge has ruled it contitutional.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.