What legal rationale could the Wisconsin Supreme Court provide to overturn Sumi's decision?
Find that the Wisconsin Open Records Law violates the Wisconsin constitution on separation of powers grounds.
Would that decision constitute judicial activism on the part of the conservatives on the bench?
According to conservatives' own definition of "judicial activism," totally.
Or, would the conservatives be inclined to let Sumi's decision stand if indeed, as you have reported, it is written and interpreted to the "letter" ...
That would depend on the extent of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John's ideological zealotry (I understand he bears primary responsibility for the DOJ's various budget repair litigations).
But I think if a state tries something like a single payer system, they’ll find out in a big hurry that it’s a disaster my party will do everything in it's power to sabotage it at the state level (as we have at the federal level)... And the people of that state will throw out that government and put in place people who will do something a lot smarter.
"Romney's stance is particularly ironic considering that, as ThinkProgress' Igor Volsky points out, the health care plan that the potential presidential candidate put forward earlier this month would undermine states' abilities to create their own health care systems by allowing insurance plans to be sold across state lines and thus 'circumvent state consumer protections and regulations.'"*
The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.
The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part.
The opinion voided all orders in the case from the lower court. It came just before 5 p.m., sparing Republicans who control the Legislature from taking up the contentious issue of collective bargaining again.
« Older Krista Hogan and Tatiana Hogan are craniopagus con... | She's an animator who loves po... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt