More details emerge about the Prosser/Bradley WI SC debacle.
Long story short, Prosser was acting in self-defense, and other justices agree that no "choking" occurred. What is also becoming obvious is that Wisconsin's Supreme Court is embroiled with more dysfunction than Homer Simpson at a vegetarian picnic.
Perhaps that is the reason that this story broke at the same time that the press was announcing Walker's signing of the Budget Bill which curtailed public sector unions' ability to collectively bargain. That way, when people read about Wisconsin, they will also read about the dysfunctional Supreme Court which is responsible* for pushing the law forward.
*Note. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with the publication of the law. The court case regarded the meetings rules in which the legislature voted to pass the bill. The court had no authority at that point to make claims about the bill/law's legality, and they made that clear in their ruling. Regardless, presumed conservative Justice Prosser wanted to wait to announce the ruling. This would not only relate to partisan perceptions, as the article notes -- doing so would have meant the Wisconsin legislature would have put the bill back up for vote in the Senate and Assembly, essentially re-passing it and taking the Supreme Court entirely out of public perception regarding the law. Honestly, of everything that's emerging about the WI SC, waiting to announce their decision would have been a good decision. Even if its intention was solely to give the perception of non-partisan whatevers, it also would have given the protesters and Dems a second chance to get their representatives to rule against the law...
Long story short, Prosser was acting in self-defense, and other justices agree that no "choking" occurred. What is also becoming obvious is that Wisconsin's Supreme Court is embroiled with more dysfunction than Homer Simpson at a vegetarian picnic.
Perhaps that is the reason that this story broke at the same time that the press was announcing Walker's signing of the Budget Bill which curtailed public sector unions' ability to collectively bargain. That way, when people read about Wisconsin, they will also read about the dysfunctional Supreme Court which is responsible* for pushing the law forward.
*Note. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with the publication of the law. The court case regarded the meetings rules in which the legislature voted to pass the bill. The court had no authority at that point to make claims about the bill/law's legality, and they made that clear in their ruling. Regardless, presumed conservative Justice Prosser wanted to wait to announce the ruling. This would not only relate to partisan perceptions, as the article notes -- doing so would have meant the Wisconsin legislature would have put the bill back up for vote in the Senate and Assembly, essentially re-passing it and taking the Supreme Court entirely out of public perception regarding the law. Honestly, of everything that's emerging about the WI SC, waiting to announce their decision would have been a good decision. Even if its intention was solely to give the perception of non-partisan whatevers, it also would have given the protesters and Dems a second chance to get their representatives to rule against the law...
No comments:
Post a Comment