Walker challenges Constitution, what he calls the "status quo," Loses.

The laughable lapdog antics of our know-nothing AG Brad Schimel, has crossed the line into blantant ass-kissing. Congratulations low information, what-ever-Walker-wants Republican in-the-tank voters, we now know you're not only dangerous to yourself, you're a danger to your community for voting Schimel in. WKOW:

Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling dealt Gov. Scott Walker a rare loss in the high court Wednesday, upholding a ruling that keeps the state education secretary independent ... the court rejected arguments made by Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel to overturn the decision. 

Never getting into the partisan gutter with Walker, Superintendent Evers simply took the high ground:

Current DPI Superintendent Tony Evers (said) the case before the court was about preserving the office's role as a nonpartisan constitutional officer in charge of implementing and overseeing education policy.

Wait, didn't Republicans already blow up the supposed myth of being "nonpartisan," which allows them to politicize everything without guilt or explanation.   

I thought the following was an amazing reveal from Walker's office over the decision. The whole privatization movement is based on playing off the fears every parent has over whether they're doing enough to help their kids succeed in school. Walker's solution is to put average elected school board members with no background in education in charge; parents who haven't been in school for decades in charge; and kids in charge of deciding their districts curriculum. Skip the research, the successes elsewhere, ignore educators. We want parents to feel good, because they know what's best instinctively:

Walker Spokesperson Tom Evenson (wrote), "Beginning with the Act 10 reforms in 2011, Governor Walker is dedicated to challenging the status quo when it impedes the ability of parents, school boards, and students to get the best educational outcomes."

Rep. Sanfelippo blames Superintendent Evers for using the Constitution as his crutch.

When I put this story together, I realized Republican Rep. Joe Sanfelippo gave us all a gift that should keep on giving. Even though these misinformed protectors of  the Constitution can't stop throwing out their weird interpretations, the following takes a different approach.

Sanfelippo unknowingly gave us the best response to his own blithering belligerence; "they rely on the Constitution as their crutch?" Well, yea.

WKOW's Greg Neumann peppered GOP State Rep. Joe Sanfelippo with facts and questions about the unintended consequences of his attempts to take away, even disparage, the voters choice of electing an accountable state schools superintendent. For big government types, a subordinate appointee controlled by the governor and legislature sounds like "representative democracy" to them.

Oddly, Sanfelippo said this would put local school districts back in control.

Lie vs Lie: After Sanfelippo claimed test scores and graduation rates were down to make his phony case, Nuemann couldn't help but mention...:

Neumann: "The governor, what he's saying on the campaign trail...he talks all the time about how the graduation rates are up; ACT scores are up. Are you saying that isn't true?"

Sanfelippo: "No I think that's true if you look at...within the last one or two school years, they're up slightly..."

Yea, right. Gotcha.



Here's what stood out in the video clip:

1. Like the governor, the DPI superintendent is elected and accountable to every voter in the state. If Sanfelippo thinks we can streamline government by getting rid of the electoral process, them maybe the governor can simply appoint senators and representatives too. The money we save on elections could go to educate students.

2. Did Sanfelippo really say the Superintendent is using the Constitution as a "crutch" to "prop up his department...?" Projection much? Sanfelippo repeated this line over and over, shamelessly.

3. Sanfelippo officially discounted economic status as a reason why minorities districts have lower test scores and a wider achievement gap.

4. Legislative grandstanding and "demanding results" in reading and math is should be met with tough talk.

5. DPI's Tony Evers isn't interested in reducing the racial achievement gap? Sure, that's why he was reelected with 61% of the vote against a Republican legislator who believe it or not, promised to protect kids from the UN backed Common Core conspiracy.

6. His idea to break up pubic schools by race baiting, classy.

The Big Fumble: Neumann caught Sanfelippo off guard and it stumped him:

Neumann: "In 1848, they made a conscious decision in the Constitution to say, this should be a separately elected office, does this speak at all to checks and balances...where I know you're saying the  legislature doesn't have as much  control, but is that a necessarily bad thing? Does this not provide more of a checks and balance, that you have a separate balance?

How do you mix common sense into a word salad of nonsense?

Sanfelippo: "Well I don't know how you get checks and balances when you have the legislature that clearly has the authority to set education policy, the Constitution says that the superintendent is in an supervisory role, so he's suppose to be carry out the statutes and rules set by the legislature and the governor, but he tends not to do that. And again, he relies on the Constitution as his crutch to do so. Every time something comes along that the superintendent or the DPI folks don't like, they right away, run to the Constitution and say oh my gosh, you can't tell us what to do, we're in charge of our own agency.

Yet the citizens of this state depend on the legislature and governor for all of the other services that are provide. And I think for a more cohesive form of government we are better off treating this as a cabinet."

It's almost like that now, frustrating State Superintendent Tony Evers and district superintendents statewide:

jsonline: The superintendents, who predominantly hailed from high-income suburban schools and many districts that voted Republican in the last election, gathered ... to urge lawmakers to amend the budget changes for K-12 schools approved by the powerful Joint Finance Committee in recent days. "We're asking them to reconsider (amendments) and reinvest in public schools," said Mequon Superintendent Demond Means, flanked by superintendents from districts such as Kettle Moraine, Glendale-River Hills, Wauwatosa, South Milwaukee, Elmbrook, Greendale, West Allis-West Milwaukee, Hamilton and Northern Ozaukee.

Oh  look, there's Sanfelippo's own district of West Allis, unhappy with the legislatures current list of big government mandates. Since Evers isn't a miracle worker, he hasn't been able to stop every bad idea:

Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget wasn't kind to public schools, but the committee's amendments had made things worse by adding items such as a significant expansion of the statewide voucher program, a special-needs voucher program, a new civics test graduation requirement and teacher-licensing changes. Mequon Superintendent Demond Means (said) "There's been so much dialogue between public officials about the Bucks and what's best for that building, but limited dialogue between elected officials and education leaders about what's best for schools."

State Conservative Activist Supreme Court Justices just gave law enforcement the "freedom and liberty" to perform illegal searches.

The Republican protectors of “freedom and liberty?” Guess again. Welcome to our big bold police state. You have to wonder if this is all part of their grand scheme. 

Wisconsin's conservative Supreme Court Justices just shredded the state Constitution, again, this time allowing for illegal searches based on a mistake and misinterpretation of the law. We can now be stopped and searched on a whim, while letting law enforcement come up with an excuse the to fit the occasion. 

WPR: Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling Expands Justifications For Police Stops: Case Involved Man Arrested For Drugs After He Was Pulled Over By Mistake … Hanna Schieber Jurss, a state public defender said that means motorists may be stopped even if they haven't violated any law. (The man’s) attorney Andrew Walter agrees: "I don't know how citizens can avoid being stopped because now it's not enough to follow the law. You also have to make sure your conduct is within this broader prohibition of things where an officer might believe is illegal even when it's not" … a significant reduction in the liberties of all state residents.

Conservative Justices Reduce Civil Liberties: Freedom and liberty my ass. It’s really a rightwing authoritarian Republican takeover, and a way to question everything we do, maybe even arrest us when it's convenient:

Justice David Prosser cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sets the same standard Wisconsin is now adopting. That case, Heien v. North Carolina was decided last year … Chief Justice John Roberts said, "The question here is whether reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition. We hold that it can."  

But that flies in the face of previous decisions made based on Wisconsin’s own Constitution, which continues to protect citizens from unreasonable searches. Who wants to give that up?

Attorney Andrew Walter said there is no requirement that the Wisconsin court follow the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment … the high court ruling also made it clear that such cases where searches are justified on the basis of an officer's mistaken interpretation of law should be very rare and that most mistakes of law are not going to be reasonable.

Former Chief Justice Abrahamson explained just how devastating this decision is to our freedom:

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting) … “the majority opinion adopts a new interpretation of Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. It does so solely in order to remain in lockstep with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation … What happened to precedent and stare decisis?

In Brown and Longcore, an opinion released just last year, this court held that reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop cannot rest on a law enforcement officer's mistake of law … The drafters of the Wisconsin Constitution could have simply said "ditto" and incorporated the federal Bill of Rights into the Wisconsin Constitution. But they did not. This court is in effect replacing Wisconsin's Declaration of Rights with its federal counterpart. This court is not taking seriously the Justices' oath of office to support the Wisconsin Constitution.

More specifically, declining to exclude evidence that was gathered from a traffic stop premised on a law enforcement officer's erroneous view of the law "would remove the incentive for police to make certain that they properly understand the law that they are entrusted to enforce and obey."
My position is supported by several cogent points that Justice Sotomayor makes in her dissent in Heien: 

Sotomayor: "The notion that the law is definite and knowable sits at the foundation of our legal system. Yet, Heien gives those who enforce the law leeway in interpreting and understanding it … Heien is a significant expansion of officers' authority and leads one to wonder "how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so."

Abrahamson: “Both precedent and policy compel me to conclude that a traffic stop premised on a law enforcement officer's mistake of law is unreasonable and thus unlawful under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. 

AG candidate Susan Happ says Capitol Protests legal, believes in the State Constitution. Brad Schimel doesn't.

AG candidate Susan Happ looked good again. Especially after Brad Schimel said he would ignore the state constitution for the new laws regulating free speech at the Capitol. Here's the actual constitutional language:

Article I, Section 4, reads: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government or any department thereof shall never be abridged.”

But that doesn't matter, because very simply, Brad Schimel will defend every rule, regulation and law written by Republicans. Below, he oddly equates disorderly conduct with the people's right to assemble and petition the government.

Here's Brad Schimel as usual, stumbling around making another promise to defend all GOP laws, and not quite getting it:



Amazing. Schimel says if you don't like the ordnance (to curb the protests), then get it changed. Nifty advice when the government you're protesting is trying to outlaw dissent. Not a smart man, and not to curious either. He should look up the unique nature of the Capitol:

The Nation Magazine summed it up best with this important point: According to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Landmark Nomination: “The soaring rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol is designed to induce its citizenry to be, as individuals, among the ‘resources of Wisconsin.’ Whereas some statehouses are maintained apart from the urban fabric, the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda functions, both literally and symbolically, as a city center and is fully utilized as a public space to which all have claim.”

Getting a permit protects our free speech? That's what radio word salad chef Vicki McKenna said. Here's what I wrote a little while back:

As phony as the following Vicki McKenna reason is, there is some paranoia in play, rooted in the fear that grips every low information conservative. Oh, and pettiness is a big motivator too: 

McKenna of WIBA participated in the Liberty Singers event, and tells 27 News obtaining a permit is about security, not the political content of the activity. "We just want folks to understand, the permit is easy to get, it's a way to protect all of us and our ability to come here to our beautiful capitol and express ourselves," McKenna says.

NOTE: The state constitution is clear about the right to protest. The last time I looked, bus tours and weddings don't rise to what we would call peaceful assemblies to "consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof" unabridged. Social events need permits, not those protesting their government policies. 

Schimel should also read a little more. Marquette University's law school posted this analysis:

One response to the criticism of the new DOA policy has been to compare the DOA policy to the rules governing demonstrations at the United States Capitol building. the U.S. Capitol building is not considered a public forum, while the Wisconsin State Capitol is. The expression of political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment when it takes place in a public forum. 

McKenna brings in the Singing Capitol Clowns!!!

Radio’s spreading statewide cancer stick Vicki McKenna thought she was being clever commandeering the Capitol on Labor Day, but really, she only ended up reaffirming her troll brigade’s utter hatred for working Americans everywhere. These are sniveling children in utter awe of their father figure Scott Walker. Father says get permission, they say yes. These are the same rugged individuals who don’t need government…except when they do. They can't get enough of those Walker Authority statewide law decrees usurping local control. They need leaders. Heil! WKOW:



All McKenna and her AFP purchased teabillies can do at this point is mock democracy:

WKOW: A group in support of Governor Walker used a permit to sing patriotic songs in the state capitol rotunda on Labor Day, as a regular group of anti-Walker protesters with organized labor ties found themselves outside the building. Liberty Singers organizer Brent Renteria of the Town of Middleton says obtaining the rally permit for Labor Day was motivated primarily by the holiday from work for those participating.

Regular protester Kristen Forde says she suspects the permit was obtained to displace the union-sympathizing protest on Labor Day.

As phony as the following Vicki McKenna reason is, there is some paranoia in play, rooted in the fear that grips every low information conservative. Oh, and pettiness is a big motivator too:

Conservative radio talk show Vicki McKenna of WIBA participated in the Liberty Singers event, and tells 27 News obtaining a permit is about security, not the political content of the activity. "We just want folks to understand, the permit is easy to get, it's a way to protect all of us and our ability to come here to our beautiful capitol and express ourselves," McKenna says.

And don’t leave out McKenna’s lack of respect for the state constitutions unabridged guarantee to protest the government. Yet she's a big believer in unabridged gun rights. Another cafeteria constitutionalist. Her playful jabs at middle class working families plays well with her dimwitted listeners, who she leads by the nose demanding they hijack the Capitol.

They won’t be happy until they've literally marked every inch of territory like a pack of rabid dogs:

McKenna says other Walker supporters have obtained permits for events in the capitol rotunda for upcoming dates in September … McKenna has encouraged people to apply for permits to stymie the Solidarity Sing-a-long.

They just love a jobless, no new business agenda that needs more time, more borrowing, more votes against their own best interests, no safety nets and lower pay. Smart.

NOTE: The state constitution is clear about the right to protest. The last time I looked, bus tours and weddings don't rise to what we would call peaceful assemblies to "consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof" unabridged. Social events need permits, not the those protesting their government policies. And I didn't see a crowd size listed either..what's that arbitrary number thing all about anyway?

Walker shreds the Wisconsin Constitutional right to Assemble and Petition. Should an out-of-control Administration decide what's reasonable, appropriate?

Point One: The Wisconsin State Journal did its best to discourage protesters at the Capitol by quoting scholars who insist our constitutional rights have reasonable limits. You know, like you can't scream "fire" in a theater. But screaming fire has nothing to do with petitioning "the government." That's where the argument falls apart.

Point Two-The larger issue: It's the Walker administrations decision to arrest citizen protesters in the Capitol. What changed? Only Walker and the Republican majority, that's all. This is a unique time where a governor has decided that opposition to his agenda should be met with tickets and arrests. Did Tony Earl resort to that? Lee Dreyfus? Did Tommy Thompson? Scott McCallum? James Doyle? Lucy, Knowles, Reynolds, Nelson...? This is distinctly Walker.

But maybe the courts got it all wrong when they defered to this argument:

"...court cases have established that governments can regulate the 'time, place and manner' of a demonstration?"

It's a convenient argument, but ignores the "never be abridged" part of the state constitution:

The right is contained in one complete sentence. It's not like that famous half sentence used to justify the right to carry a gun. It's one complete thought. 

But the State Journal wrote:

Over the last two weeks dozens of singing protesters have risked arrest … They brandish signs claiming the First Amendment as their permit … But constitutional scholars who study and defend the First Amendment say there’s ample legal precedent supporting the government’s ability to require a permit to demonstrate in a public place. University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone said: “The court has held that this is a reasonable requirement so the government can make sure that it can appropriately manage the expression in terms of things like timing, disruption, police protection, avoiding multiple events at the same time, etc.,” Stone said in an email.

Such "reasonable requirements" that "appropriately manage" expression appears to do more to protect government officials from...us.

The Fat Blaska Sings, the Day Wisconsin Surrendered Freedom to the Walker Authority!

Should I be surprised the Wisconsin State Journal’s conservative whiner Chris Richert had a hard time understanding why the Solidarity Singers didn't buy a permit. Or that a former Republican county supervisor, David Blaska, bought one because his leaders required it? It’s what some have described as authoritarian conservatism. They don't get the long term point.

Who would have thought that the party who likes to think of themselves as “constitutional conservatives,” would think to first ask to get their governments permission to protest? I’m thinking it would be almost comical to get one of them to “channel” a founding father, which they often do, to justify such a policy.

Blaska’s “permit protest” will unintentionally represent only one thing…surrender. His party subservience will be on display for all to see. And this is what passes for rugged individualism? 

WSJ: “They have commandeered this space, and the fact is, to get my song in edgewise, I’ve got to get a permit,” said David Blaska, a conservative columnist who is organizing the group he calls the “We've Got a Permit” singers.

“'We've Got a Permit' singers,” really? It's breathtaking. To be honest, I never thought I’d see the day we had such unquestionably blind obedience to a political party. Watching Blaska cower before his leaders should give everyone watching, a sinking feeling that something is terribly wrong here:

Blaska will lead his group in singing “America the Beautiful” and “God Bless America.”

I've pointed to this article below in the past, and find it the best explanation yet about what is really going on, from George W. Bush on up to Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott... Terms like "Right-Wing Authoritarians," "Social Dominators" and the "Double High Authoritarian" who possesses " 'extra-extra unfair' natures," are all ways of describing Republicans today. From former Nixon White House counsel John Dean of Watergate fame, the “Triumph of the authoritarians,” appearing in the Boston Globe on July 14, 2006. All this from a real conservative:

Contemporary conservatism … calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary  … the monocratic leadership style imposed on the US House in 1994 … destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate … Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals.

Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

Authoritarianism's impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they've often been supplanted by authoritarians.

Wisconsin Family Action Loses Court Action to Prevent Domestic Partner Hospital Visits and End of Life Planning.

One of the more mean spirited restrictions on freedom was a challenge to the states domestic partner policy. The right wing pushes their empty rhetoric of freedom and liberty with caveats.

The marriage amendment by itself is most likely unconstitutional, but that’s another story.

So the Wisconsin Family Action group lost a big one here today. The horrors of hospital visits and end-of-life decision making was an intolerable infringement on Judeo-Christian principles and values and had to be stopped. It wasn't:

jsonline: A state appeals court has ruled Wisconsin's domestic partner registry is constitutional. The 4th District Court of Appeals said that the domestic partnership law does not violate the marriage amendment.

Democratic lawmakers created the registry in 2009. It grants same-sex couples a host of legal rights, including the right to visit each other in hospitals and make end-of-life decisions for one another. Members of the Conservative Group Wisconsin Family Action filed a lawsuit two years ago alleging the registry violates the Wisconsin Constitution's ban on gay marriage. A Madison judge ruled last year the registry was legal.

"We Ain’t Backing Down" rally against activist judges, to bring certainty to courts by always siding with Conservatives.

If you had a feeling the teabilly movements random use of “freedom and liberty” had a hollow ring to it, you were right beyond your wildest dreams.

The teatard rally at the Capitol Saturday 10 to 11 a.m., is bringing a very unusual message to the people’s house.

Brookfield Patch: The purpose of the rally is to remind “judges they are consistently ruling against the democratic majority in this great state,” according to the statement.

And that's because...oh never mind. Here’s how our low information pocket constitutionalists view the judicial branch of the government and the whole idea of the constitution:

Time to get out School House Rock?

“We demand they respect the other two branches of government and allow our state to run by the consent of the people. Our state Constitution needs judges that apply the law the people write, not reinterpret it.” The purpose of the rally is to remind “judges they are consistently ruling against the democratic majority in this great state. We demand they respect the other two branches of government and allow our state to run by the consent of the people. Our state Constitution needs judges that apply the law the people write, not reinterpret it.”

Is  your head still spinning? It’s hard to know where to start. If these are the supposed great defenders of the constitution, heaven help us. Majority rules? The tyranny of the majority is more like it. Blame tea party dumbo's in Founders Intent and the Tea Party Patriots.

After siting “decisions, including DNR regulations, voter ID laws and the collective bargaining law” it never occurs to them that maybe they’re the ones with a constitutional problem. Instead, they “call the judges' actions an abuse of power.”

Of course, all of this stupidity is ripe for manipulation by those who would put corporations in charge. Which brings me to the latest look at our gasping judicial branch.

In the recent issue of the Nation, Bill Moyers wrote this:

They fashioned a compelling narrative based on a judicial philosophy called “originalism.” The task of Supreme Court justices was to stick to the text of the Constitution as faithfully as a fundamentalist clergyman to the word of God … The words of the founding fathers should be applied precisely as they had understood them in 1787, in order to divine their “original intent.”

The effort to find “rights” not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution in order to expedite the purposes listed in the preamble—such as promoting the general welfare and establishing justice—was, in Robert Bork’s view, a “heresy” practiced by liberal justices trying to cram radical social programs down the nation’s gullet. Never mind that said preamble seems to define that “original intent” more clearly and eloquently than any other source; after all, the framers wrote it.

The nation imagined by its founders—those authors of “We the People,” who clearly intended this experience in self-government to include the many, not just the privileged few—is under siege by extraordinary concentrations of corporate power and private wealth, aided and abetted by an autocratic judiciary.

In another Nation article William Yeomans sited this example of the right wing takeover of our courts: 

In assessing the corporate capture of the courts, however, a compelling starting place is the memorandum written in 1971 by Lewis Powell for his friend Eugene Sydnor, an official of the US Chamber of Commerce.

He wrote almost hysterically that “the American economic system is under broad attack” by “Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries,” Powell wrote that “with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” He urged the Chamber to adopt the tactics of the ACLU, civil rights groups, public interest organizations and labor unions in convincing the Court to empower corporations.

Walker, Republican Voters, believe in Tyranny of the Majority, and not the Constitution.

The state's constitutional teabillies, the whole Walker administration, are proving how bad "strict constructionists" are at interpreting out founding document. Justice Thomas and Scalia are members of that club too. Losing confidence yet? You should be. It's all part of the conservative activist takeover of our courts.

The best example yet is this recent reaction by Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, with Neil Cavuto, the other day on Fox News:

Kleefisch: "You're talking about the court taking on a whole extra branch of government, as part of its resume."

Amazing isn't it?


This was the story at Bradblog, who couldn't have said it any better:

WI s Walker Fellow Republicans Unclear on How Judiciary, Constitution Works

There was another interesting response to the ruling from Walker and his fellow partisans following the ruling on Friday, which seems to suggest they haven't a clue about how the court system works, how the U.S. Constitution is supposed to work, or even how representative democracy works. Either that, or they simply don't care and feel it's just more important to continue scamming their gullible constituencies then it is to be honest about what actually happened on Friday.

Making matters worse though, not only are they wrong about matters of how democracy and the court system works, they are also wrong on their facts as well, even if they hope nobody will notice...

"The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5th," Walker said at the top of his response to the ruling on Friday. "Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly, a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backward and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the Legislature and the governor."

In a similar vein, Republican state Rep. Robin Vos

"A judge living in the fantasy world of Dane County has decided they are going to substitute their singular opinion as opposed to the collective will of Wisconsin, through the Legislature and the recall process," Vos is quoted in Milwaukee's Journal-Sentinelas saying on Friday. "We have litigated, reviewed and elected people because of Act 10 [the Republican law which strips most collectively bargaining rights]. In each case, they say the law works. And it is," he said.

Of course, neither how "the people of Wisconsin...spoke on June 5th", as Walker argued, nor anything about the "recall process" or "collective will of Wisconsin" as the hypocritical Vos suggested, or even whether or not "the law works," have anything to do with whether it is legal under the state and U.S. Constitution.

Nonetheless, as expected, their partisan surrogates in the media have parroted the same disingenuous line.

"The list of people who support Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's law ... is fairly long," writes partisan Christian Schneider at the National Review Online, as well as at the Journal-Sentinel today. "Yet," Schneider adds deceptively, "the law was gutted on Friday by Dane County circuit court judge Juan Colas, who took it upon himself to save the citizens of Wisconsin from a law that they overwhelmingly support."

The Constitutionality of laws is not determined at the ballot box. In fact, the U.S. Constitution, at least, is specifically designed in order to help protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. What is it that these Republicans don't understand about that?

For some reason, the partisan Republican supporters of the anti-union law who believe that Walker's supposed win on June 5th means the law is Constitutional, have conveniently forgotten that they also ended up losing control of the entire State Senate because of it.

But let's not let facts --- and the way government and the rule of law and the court system actually work --- get in the way of Republican activist partisans.

Walker on Ruling that Act 10 is Unconstitutional: "I Think most people, they're just happy to move on."

How phony is the term “constitutional conservative?”

HTRNews: The Republican governor visited Susie Altmayer School this morning to help teach fourth-graders about the ratification of the U.S. Constitution as part of a statewide education tour. 

A gutsy move after being accused of violating the constitution:

A Dane County judge ruled Friday that the controversial law, passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011, violates the schooland local employees’ constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation.

For Walker, fighting to uphold constitutional rights has run its course:

“I think for most people, they’re just happy to move on,” Walker said this morning. “I think most people want to get back to stability.”

Sen. Glenn Grothman Goes Banana's (republic) over Act 10 Decision

Sen. Glenn Grothman is an unfiltered conservative voice, who honestly reflects his party’s position. In the press release below, not only is Grothman undermining our judicial system by bashing a decision he disagrees with, but he also thinks we should end our educational system so we can stop breeding “left-wing extremism” (the real reason for vouchers). Listen to Sly in the Mornings interview with Glenn here!! It'll blow your mind.

It can’t be overstated; we’re seeing a winner take all move toward an authoritarian one party system, discussed openly by politicians, and rabidly supported by Republican voters. There’s nothing to “decoded” anymore.

“The decision reached today by Dane County Judge Colas is further evidence of the complete abandonment of the rule of law in this state and country … Some judges today are rendering decisions one would expect from a banana republic dictatorship or newly independent country in which respect for the law has not been established. I also hope this serves as a clarion call to policymakers that we must no longer allow our education system to be a breeding ground for left-wing extremism.  It should be a particular embarrassment that Judge Colas is a product of the UW Law School, so is Judge Sumi who earlier tried to overturn Act 10.  Rather than wasting money on current diversity bureaucrats, we must guarantee intellectual diversity at the University of Wisconsin in general and the Law School in particular, so that some of their graduates have a respect for the separation of powers and the rule of law.”  

Despite the Republican use of the courts pursuing cases like Citizens United and Obamacare, a few Democratic challenges will not be tolerated. Again, Grothman’s isn’t alone in pursuing a no-holds-barred hostile one party takeover of government.  Read the list of comments below in reaction to Judge Colas’ ruling, posted on radio talker Vicki Mckenna’s Facebook site. Scary stuff.

This shows how little respect they have for the Constitution, and how little they understand it. 

Walker Thugs Plan Act 10 Decision Protest at Capitol, thought power and public opinion trumped Constitution!

I had to laugh when I read the reaction by at least one conservative voter when they heard Act 10 was unconstitutional, in fact, and null and void. Not only are these authoritarian control freaks pissed they didn't get their way, but their now planning to stage a protest at the Capitol.

Protesting at the Capitol? As Chief Erwin stated recently, upsetting little girls and bothering tourists will not be tolerated, even in a representative democracy? I hope they like the new rules…you gotta laugh.

Act 10 (does this) specifically, the law violates the guarantee of freedom of speech and citizens' freedom of association.

Right wing "owners of the constitution," don't seem to like certain kinds of free speech and associations:

Mt. Pleasant Patch: A event page titled We Aren’t Backing Down! Tell Wisconsin Union Judges NO! was posted by a group called Founders’ Intent and advocated for a protest at the State Capitol on Sept. 22. On the event Facebook page, Kristie Formolo wrote: How many times do we have to shove it in their out of touch liberal faces. Wisconsin is moving forward... We are tired of liberals ruining our state and our country.

Assembly snake Rep. Robin Vos seems to think public opinion and elections trump the constitution:

Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said Act 10 had already been litigated, but more importantly, state residents have re-affirmed over and over again their support of the measure. "There have been multiple opportunities for residents to speak out about Act 10, and they have, through the recall elections, proven that they approve of the law," he said.

And again, Vos like everyone in the Walker Authority, still don't get that they're the ones who started the chaos:

"It's not fair that a liberal Dane County judge could potentially throw the entire state into chaos now," Vos added. Overall, Vos said this was a political decision made by a political judge that might need to be stayed. 

Newly elected, via a recall election, Sen. John Lehman said it best about the Walker Authority:

State Sen. John Lehman (D-Racine) "The budget repair bill was never about patching a hole in the budget. It was strictly a targeted move at a political opponent," he said. "I'm glad the court caught them in the act of targeting certain groups that opposed Gov. Walker." 

Judge Overturns much of Act 10, the Union busting law.

What is it about Republicans like Scott Walker, Scott and Jeff Fitzgerald, and Robin Vos that makes them continually push the constitutional line in everything they do? These constitutional originalists don't seem to get what most judges get. First the courts declared the voter ID law unconstitutional, then it was parts of the redistricting maps, and now Act 10. Wake up GOP voters.

In what seems ironic now, Scott Walker is touring the state's schools celebrating the anniversary of the U.S. Constitution:

Dear Parents of 4th Grade Students:

I am writing to inform you that Governor Scott Walker is coming to visit School on Thursday, September 13th and will speak with all of our 4th grade students! Governor Walker and a professional from the Wisconsin Historical Society are coming to to celebrate the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. They will present a lesson to all of our 4th grade students from 9:15 am until approximately 10 am. Students will hear about the signing of the Constitution and be able to ask the Governor some questions they may have for him.

I know, I laughed too. Here's Al Sharpton on MSNBC with the breaking news:

jsonline's Jason Stein just posted this: 

Gov. Scott Walker's law repealing most collective bargaining for local and school employees was struck down by a Dane County judge Friday, yet another dramatic twist in a more than year and a half saga that likely sets up another showdown in the Supreme Court.

The law remains largely in force for state workers, though a federal judge struck down part of that section of the law as well earlier this year. But for city, county, and school workers the decision by Dane County Judge Juan Colas returns the law to its status before Walker signed his law in March 2011.

The ruling means that, unless it is overturned on appeal, school districts and local officials will have to return to the bargaining table with their workers in a much more significant way. The decision raises a host of questions about changes in pay, benefits and work rules that have taken place in the meantime while bargaining was essentially dead.

"The decision essentially creates the (2011) status quo for municipal employees and school district employees because it declared that the essential provisions of Act 10 to be unconstitutional," said Lester Pines, an attorney for the Madison teachers and city of Milwaukee employees who are plaintiffs.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he would likely appeal the decision. "We believe the law is constitutional. We are reviewing the decision but we're planning to appeal," Dana Brueck said.

Will anyone Challenge the Walker Authority’s Violations of the First Amendment, State Constitution?

Arresting peaceful protesters can’t be constitutional. So what’s the hang up?

You know we’re in real trouble, when after 10 months, the ACLU and Democrats are still bumping into walls over what appears to be a clear violation of our state and federal constitutions.

To add insult to injury, Scott Walker is touring the state as a counterbalance, celebrating the anniversary of our federal constitution;

“Our founding fathers risked their lives to embark on our great American experiment and crafted the Constitution to serve as its blueprint,” said Governor Walker. “Our commitment to freedom and opportunity laid out in the Constitution has made America the greatest and most prosperous nation on Earth and has served as a model for countless other nations around the world.”

Do you think the Walker Authority planned it this way? When all you can do is start a letter of inquiry and protest with, “Dear Chief Erwin,” then what we have here is an example of pure legal and political cowardice. That’s how the assembly Democrats started their letter. Here’s a few more lines that should contained in a lawsuit, but aren't:

 “…we have legitimate concerns about policies governing conduct in the Capitol. Refusing to delineate which specific behaviors are subject to arrest or citation, and saying the determination whether or not to arrest or cite people is made on a “case-by-case basis”, seems to suggest that you are simply making things up as you go along. After a Dane County judge ruled Wednesday that merely holding a sign did not meet the Administrative Code definition of “displayed”, and therefore did not require a permit, you shifted tactics ... Earlier this week people were ticketed under different Administrative Code sections dealing with access/passage … The people who received tickets were not given warnings or asked to stop their actions. The vast majority of the citations previously given to demonstrators have been dismissed.

Have any of the tickets already issued … been upheld by the courts?  Continuing to give out such constitutionally-questionable citations is definitely a waste of court resources and could well verge into the territory of police harassment. At the very least, it leads people to believe the administration is using the force of government to silence dissent.

Pretending to be naive over public intimidation is pathetic:

While it may not be your intent, the change of tone … are serving to provoke and escalate … you said the demonstrators were “terrorizing people at this Capitol” in an interview with the Wisconsin Reporter.

The Capitol has a very special, constitutionally-protected role as a forum for people to exercise their rights to speak freely and petition their government.  Civility does not mean that those who disagree with the government should sit down, be quiet, and let the administration do whatever it wants.  The Administrative Code and the Wisconsin State Facilities Access Policy cannot supersede the state and federal constitutions.

I just want to scream. In the meantime the intended chilling effect of the Walker Authority's rules are working. Don't expect any help from the ACLU either, after seeing their wimpy whining in a video at the Daily Kos:

The other day, at least one of the officers apparently snapped under the pressure and threatened an ACLU legal observer.

A similar letter to the one above from Rep. Chris Taylor to Chief Erwin ends with "...we look forward to meeting with you."  Real effective.

Sue the bastards, now.

Walker Clamps down on First Amendment Rights, puts a $200 Price Tag on Protests.

This stunning story greeted me this morning:

On September 5, 2012 the Wisconsin Capitol Police arrest 8 people and charge them with "Unlawful display of sign"

Is this even allowed under the state constitution, and how long will it be before someone finally challenges this outrageous restriction? Want to hold a sign up supporting the Red Cross, forget it.

Shit Scott Walker Is Doing To My State:"Two of the “signs” were actually t-shirts being distributed by the organization Muslims for Life that helped to promote the American Red Cross blood drive taking place on the first floor. Another sign said, “We ♥Blood Donors,” and yet another was a copy of Article I, Section 4, of the Wisconsin Constitution, which reads: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government or any department thereof shall never be abridged.”

I don't know why a legal challenge wasn't attempted when the rules were first established. Now many of those arrested and fined $200 have to shell out their hard earned cash to the new Walker authority.

YouTube channel Arthurkr222 had this incredible video of the arrests:



Marquette University's law school posted this analysis:

One response to the criticism of the new DOA policy has been to compare the DOA policy to the rules governing demonstrations at the United States Capitol building. the U.S. Capitol building is not considered a public forum, while the Wisconsin State Capitol is. The expression of political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment when it takes place in a public forum. The bottom line is that it makes a difference for the constitutional analysis of the new DOA policy that the Wisconsin State Capitol is a public forum. Might the legislators in Madison pass a bill declaring that the Wisconsin State Capitol is no longer a public forum? Not really, because once a location has become a public forum by tradition the government may not arbitrarily remove that status.

As I previously wrote, the new DOA policy is overbroad because it allows fees to be imposed on the indigent as a condition of protesting, it vests unbounded discretion in the Capitol police to determine whether to impose advance fees for security costs, and it requires permits from small groups of four or more protesters. These restrictions fail to meet the strict standards used to evaluate limitations on speech in a public forum. Even in a nonpublic forum like the U.S. Capitol, the federal courts have enjoined attempts to prevent small groups from engaging in non-disruptive protests without a permit. Rather than continue in its attempts to justify restrictions that indefensibly infringe upon the First Amendment rights of citizens, the DOA should withdraw its new policy and start from scratch.

One protester held up a blank piece of paper and was told to take it down. Sounds the beginnings of a worthwhile protest; show-up with blank paper or cardboard, in essence, not a sign and walk around the capital sight seeing.

Capitol Police Chief Crackdown on Protesters Delayed.

The protest went without a hitch yesterday, for those supporting the Solidarity Singers right to sing in the Capitol without a newly required permit. As reported by WKOW TV:



Maybe Chief David Erwin's marching orders to crack down on protesters, appears to conflict with the state of Wisconsin's constitutional guarantee to protest the government.

Article I, Section 4, of the Wisconsin State Constitution: “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.” 

Are Wisconsinites getting a clearer picture of the Walker Authority's definition of "freedom and liberty?" If protecting the Second Amendment from any possible restrictions is so important, than why isn't our right to petition our government just as crucial? Yet conservative voters are okay with allowing the heavy hand of state government to prosecute targeted protesters.

jsonline: The new Capitol police chief is poised to get tough on a handful of disruptive protesters ... raising the possibility of a lawsuit from civil liberties groups. Capitol Police Chief Dave Erwin is installing panic buttons in some lawmakers' offices, changing the look of his officers' uniforms (banning facial hair) and raising some eyebrows with a suggestion to female legislative aides that they be prepared to hit demonstrators if they feel threatened and cornered. He suggested they try filming a demonstrator and, if that didn't work, punching the person with their free hand. "I said if it wasn't working you could try to hit them," Erwin said."Some of our greatest rights came from protests. I support that 100%. There's a time and a place. But every day, every day, you've got to think about that," Erwin said. "My goal is to return the Capitol to some normalcy," he said.

Is it possible the Dane County DA backed down when confronted by the Walker Authority?

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne a Democrat, said that he was informed that the Department of Justice would take the civil cases and that he would continue to handle the criminal cases with care. 

Rebecca Kemble of the Nation Magazine summed it up best with this important point and picture:

But Chief Erwin does not seem to understand that the Capitol is not a “normal” workplace and these are not “normal” political times.

According to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Landmark Nomination, this is the extraordinary nature of the Wisconsin State Capitol: “The soaring rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol is designed to induce its citizenry to be, as individuals, among the ‘resources of Wisconsin.’ Whereas some statehouses are maintained apart from the urban fabric, the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda functions, both literally and symbolically, as a city center and is fully utilized as a public space to which all have claim.”

A Legal take on the Voter ID Judges decisions.

With the recent judicial decisions against the painfully unconstitutional voter ID law, wouldn't it make sense to talk to an attorney about what it all means?  That's what Sly in the Morning did, when he talked to Att. John Walsh from Axley Brynelson. Who are these Dane County liberal activist judges, Neiss and Flanagan, and why are they putting up such a fight against a "common sense," unconstitutional law?

Why the Voter ID Law is Unconstitutional pt. 1

I've posted a short section of the full opinion piece written up by the Journal Sentinel, regarding the unconstitutional voter ID law. There's so much more, so check it out:

Monday's ruling by Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess spells out in compelling argument why Wisconsin's voter ID law is unconstitutional. He also argues in passing that the law's restriction would fall disproportionately on those with the fewest resources to obtain an ID.

We think Niess got it exactly right, although we acknowledge, as does the judge, that voter ID in some form is constitutional. It's just that Wisconsin legislators went too far in constructing this measure.

That's our argument, but we couldn't say it any better than Niess did in his ruling, which we excerpt at length below.

Judge Richard Niess' order granting a permanent injunction of the state's voter ID law:

Article III, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution specifies who may vote in Wisconsin:

Section 1. Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district. . . .

Article III is unambiguous, and means exactly what it says. It creates both necessary and sufficient requirements for qualified voters. Every United States citizen 18 years of age or older who resides in an election district in Wisconsin is a qualified elector in that district, unless excluded by duly enacted laws barring certain convicted felons or adjudicated incompetents/partially incompetents.

The government may not disqualify an elector who possesses those qualifications on the grounds that the voter does not satisfy additional statutorily created qualifications not contained in Article III, such as a photo ID . . . .

Don't forget the Indiana Voter ID Decision Back in 2008

This decision by the U.S. Supreme Kangaroo Conservative Court way back in April 2008 couldn't sound partisan :

The Supreme Court  upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud. In a 6-to-3 ruling, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny.

What this means now four years later is anybodies guess. Wisconsin’s recent decision was based on the state constitution. But when you have to deal with these conservative activist Justices...

NY Times: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the justifications for the law “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.” Democrats and civil rights groups who attacked the law, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face, had failed to meet the heavy burden required for such a “facial challenge” to prevail.

Perhaps, they suggested, the outcome could be different in another voter-rights case, one in which a plaintiff could show that his or her rights had been violated … a lawsuit brought by someone (who) was actually barred by the statute from casting a ballot.

Despite all the estimates of disenfranchisement and trouble citizens have reported trying to obtain a picture voter ID, that still wasn’t enough for the partisan paranoid minds on the Supreme Court fixated on this century and a half long conservative goal.

In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.” Brian C. Bosma, who was speaker of the Indiana House when the law was enacted and is now the House’s Republican leader, dismissed the Democrats’ complaints. “This is only a burden for those who want to vote more than once,” Mr. Bosma said in a telephone interview from Indianapolis. “It protects everyone.”

There was also discussion over how much voter fraud really exists, with some suggestions that the reason it has apparently never been prosecuted in Indiana is because those who commit fraud are good at it.

Has the conservative goal to own the courts and win the political legislative challenges moved our country past the point of no return? We'll know soon enough.