Community Blogs
Recalls, Voter ID, more recalls, and now ACT 10...
Yet another activist, liberal judge in The People's Republic of Madison has seen fit to strike down legislation passed and championed by the majority of Wisconsinites - ACT 10. ACT 10 was correctly described by Republican State Senator Alberta Darling as follows: “Act 10 is a way to uphold the tax payers best interest and to have local government and municipalities and state legislators have the power to decide what is naturally feasible for the state and local municipalities when it comes to services of public employees as well as the federal level and local level. It’s very important for the state to control this cost."
The recent ruling against ACT 10 should come as no surprise, because since day one of Scott Walker's (original) election, the left has been unable to accept the fact that Walker and the Republicans have enacted legislation that most Wisconsinites have demanded for years.
From the never-ending recalls, Voter ID, and now ACT 10, Walker, the Republicans, and the majority of people in the state have to remain patient. Eventually Voter ID will be back in place. The same will happen with ACT 10. I predict the activist judge's ruling on ACT 10 will be stayed, until it is appealed and becomes the law of the state once again.
Just as Walker got elected governor, then had to get elected governor once again, we will have to go to round two of getting passed legislation re-instated.
It is just a matter of time.
As for those folks who gleefully told the rest of the country that "elections have consequences" when Barack Hussein Obama won the presidency, how about accepting and living by your own words for just once?
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (131)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
31 Comments
jman99 - Sep 15, 2012 11:26 AM
It will be stayed, but only until the upper courts have a go at it. At that time, I'm pretty sure it will be found to be unconstitutional as it treats the rights of groups differently under the law.
ahemmer - Sep 15, 2012 11:35 AM
As for "discrimnatory?" Maybe - but only in the sense that ACT 10 protects "certain groups" (taxpayers, government bodies) from being held hostage to the incredulous demands and lucrative benefits of public sector unions. Benefits and demands which were unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible - as the years have shown.
jman99 - Sep 15, 2012 11:51 AM
What you describe is belly aching, not discrimination ( in the legal sense).
The outcome could be that the superior court orders a roll back of Police and fire fighters' benefits to the enactment of Act 10 to level the field or a reinstatement of the salaries and benefits for all other unions to match Police and Fire Fighters.
If the Wisconsin court deems it constitutional, then it will likely go to SCOTUS, because there needs to be clear precedent that can be universally applied.
Walker may take a struck down Act 10 to SCOTUS as well, for the same reasons.
It's not over yet, and it won't be over soon.
WFB resident - Sep 16, 2012 9:43 AM
all about act ten , So why are you not able to be with the people j ? Do the majority
have a say or not to PDLS's ?
WFB resident - Sep 16, 2012 9:50 AM
ever think this through ? lol...
WFB resident - Sep 16, 2012 9:56 AM
come out and want to take away one of many rights we truly have ! j Do you even
know what your true rights are ? lol... I have just led j to the water . Will he be able
to understand what to do next ? lol...
ahemmer - Sep 16, 2012 11:28 AM
I found several good comments on websites discussing the ACT 10 ruling. Here are a few I though profound:
"Collective bargaining is extortion when done by public sector workers. It has no place in government work.
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service" FDR
First president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was “impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
What the LEFT can't get from HONEST political dealing they STEAL via the COURTS."
WFB resident - Sep 16, 2012 5:01 PM
Hipocrisy ! When I went to union meetings , I was only allowed in with Photo
identification !! The PDLS's always talk about the teachers in impoverished areas
needing more money for they have a hard job . Yet that would assume those not in
impoverished areas do not need the same amount! But try to point that out to them .
I was forced to pay union dues even though I disagreed with much of their opinions !
Where were my (lefty) rights when All I wanted was a job ? Can not keep it with out
paying my Lefty dues/tax/extorsion money !! All of a sudden those rights are some
how lost in those unions ! lol...
Mucho - Sep 17, 2012 12:46 PM
Per Hemmer's point - You can't have it both ways. Many laws regarding employee benefits and rights treat different groups differently. Here are a few:
- Affirmative action (hiring and firing practices)
- Married v single (taxes and benefits)
- Concientious objectors may get out of serving in a military action due to religious beliefs
- Age (thousands of laws grant rights and privileges based soley upon what age group you belong to)
- Military workers have differnt rights than civilians (different courts, different voting considerations)
The most obvious one that directly applies to Act 10 is the simple fact that Public Safety wokers are specifically called out as being different than other jobs in laws that prohibit them from striking. While the teaches can strike, Firemen and Police can't - different groups, different laws - just like Act 10. Remember the air traffic controllers in~ 1981?
The judge in Madison knows he will be overturned yet he does not care because by failing to rule according to law, he get's re-elected.
jman99 - Sep 17, 2012 1:24 PM
- Married v single (taxes and benefits)
- Concientious objectors may get out of serving in a military action due to religious beliefs
- Age (thousands of laws grant rights and privileges based soley upon what age group you belong to)
- Military workers have differnt rights than civilians (different courts, different voting considerations)"
1) no, because it is an anti-discrimination law ad applies equally across the land to all.
2)No. Actually that is dependent and no longer classified as "married". Just a book keeping thing because you are allowed to claim your dependants on Income Tax.
3) Superseded by the constitution which enshrines Religious freedoms if they can be demonstrated ( how Romney got out of Vietnam ) Quakers actually served as medics and received lower pay than GI's
4) Not valid because all these folks are of the same age group: legal for work.
5) Only as far as the fort gate or in wartime action over seas. If you are a GI driving drunk on the highway, your behind goes into the county slammer and you go before a civilian judge.
Nope these are a all part of the pool of State employees and as such are to be treated same wise for the purposes of Legislation such as Act 10, unless there is a strong precedent set to the opposite.
WFB resident - Sep 17, 2012 2:48 PM
wants are not reality !
achieve1 - Sep 17, 2012 2:57 PM
WFB resident - Sep 17, 2012 3:38 PM
of office ? lol...
Mucho - Sep 17, 2012 3:57 PM
Affirmative action requires employers to deomonstrate their plan to speccifically hire, specific groups of people sorted by race, creed, and sex. It promotes treating people the same by creating incetives for some over others.
Marriage entitles emplyees in most insurance plans to receive more compensation in the form of insuran ce benefit than a singel person in the same job.
Concientious obeserver status we obviously agree on. Your use of the word "superceded" is impressive but demonstrates that different groups being treated differently is supported by the constitution. BTW Romney did NOT get out of VietNam using that status. He used the same vehicle Biden did.
Military employees have wider access to voting early and by mail. Different group - different rights.
Age - Different Age groups get different rights. Pretty simple. It is simply a precedent.
Mucho - Sep 17, 2012 4:00 PM
Its called "PUBLIC SAFETY"
Pretty easy stuff to understand. They get treated differently from the town to the Federal Level because PUBLIC SAFETY is involved. You won't see a lot of cops, firemen or Air Traffic Controllers go on strike - because it is illegal. Like so many other groups, Public Safety workers have different rights under the law. This precedent goes back to the 1940's.
jman99 - Sep 17, 2012 4:54 PM
??????
that has nothing to do with the equality of contract status between the State and Public sector employees.
jman99 - Sep 17, 2012 4:56 PM
But only as individuals when they are hired and not as a collective group.
jman99 - Sep 17, 2012 4:57 PM
Actually he did. it was not a college deferment when he went to France.
jman99 - Sep 17, 2012 4:59 PM
Mostly because of logistics and not because they ar in some way better or different than ordinary citizens. Their votes are not singled out when counted, nor do they carry additional weight.
jman99 - Sep 17, 2012 5:02 PM
Only in terms of abilities.
Driving, voting, military service. Once you cross the age o majority threshold and are no longer classified as a juvenile, you take your rights to the grave. the only reason for that is that you are not deemed fully competent, because you are under the care of your parents.
Very lame argument on your part, not very well thought out.