Betcha another Tommy Thompson appointment like the others.

God, I wish I had the crying towel concession.

Face it. Without unions, the middle class disappears. You can correlate the shirking of the middle class with the suppression of unions.

Even the liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt said government should not have unions. He forbade it when he was President.

Keith said: "Face it. Without unions, the middle class disappears."

The issue is public employee unions. So no the middle class does not disappear. Only unreasonable negotiations when both sides are on the same side of the table.

@Badjrsgord... Public unions are not allowed to strike in the state of Wisconsin.

@Lyle: Yeah, but public union workers need to show ID to vote in union activites. Does that mean unions are trying to oppress the vote? Just wondering.

Another non thinking parrot repeating the right wing radio talk show shtick "People's Republic of Madison"

You are totally wrong on your argument. There is another option.
YOU can displace the public worker.
YOU can house feed and supervise the child molestor, rapist and murderer.
YOU can wipe the butt of the vegatative patient
YOU can control the criminally insane
YOU can plow your own street
YOU can bury your sewage in your back yard

BUT YOU are just too lazy to do it, too cheap to pay for it and too dumb to think. Thus you parrot "People's Republic of Madison"

Most, if not all, of those services could be contracted out to private companies. Every time public employees engage in actions like this one, that option becomes more attractive. I've lived in areas where garbage pick up and plowing was contracted out and the quality was as good if not better than that provided by public employees. The only thing missing in those areas was the bad attitude.

@Jon Robert
OH PLEASE SAVE US OH GREAT DPW EMPLOYEE!

LOL I've watch both union and non-union workforces do garbage pickup, perform streetwork, and perform construction projects.

Jon, you and your pals SUCK at your jobs, and not to mention come across as thick skulled idiots.

Sorry, Keith, Juan Colas was a Doyle appointee.

There goes ANY sense of impartiality.

oak creek resident
@Jon Robert
OH PLEASE SAVE US OH GREAT DPW EMPLOYEE!
LOL I've watch both union ...Jon, you and your pals SUCK at your jobs, and not to mention come across as thick skulled idiots.

oak creek resident really you need to start usingthe brain in your head. The public employee union cops that responded to the temple shooting in Oak creek According to you the non brain user " SUCK at your jobs, and not to mention come across as thick skulled idiots."

Please start using your brain.

"Face it. Without unions, the middle class disappears."

This from a Shorewood resident (I think), a middle class community where most people are not in a union.

The same liberal crap over and over no wonder nothing gets done.

@Jon

didn't know that Police are in the DPW?

@Bob McBride - you would rather outsource the jobs to the private sector - go ahead then you are going to have the same issues that you have at the Federal level - why do you thing the Dept of Defense is so outrageously expensive to run? they contract out to their buddies (Dick Cheney's company) - you have qualified people leaving the federal govt to go work for these companies because they can get paid more and work less hours. - So go ahead and when your taxes go up because your paying for the private companies CEO to have his 6 vacation homes and his wife to have botox - do bitch about it.

Not my call, Ann. But if I were in charge of providing services for my municipality and I had an opportunity to isolate at least some of them from actions such as this one that wreak havoc with my budget, I'd certainly give it a hard look at this point. And as I said, I've lived in communities that have done precisely that. The service was excellent, the cost to the community was less than it would be if they had to hire people directly to do it and, obviously, this ruling doesn't effect those services.

And, seriously - Dick Cheney? That's your argument against farming out garbage collection, plowing and other municipal services?

Ed Larsen –

Sorry Ed, Keith is RIGHT, whether you are talking about public or private unions.

[Every public union employee is responsible for the creation of .67% of a private employee job; look at employment, the middle class, and, more importantly, the steady decline in private sector wages and benefits since Ray-Gun destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers Union and others in the ‘80s…]

Moammar Walker, his sycophantic legislator and his infamous overreach with Act X is going all the way to the Supreme Court… that is, IF the Supreme Court actually accepts their responsibility as jurists, and takes it…

I can live with OBAMACARE = CONSTITUTIONAL; ACT X = UNCONSTITUTIONAL…

I just hope that you RED, COMMUNIST REPUBLICANS will accept the Supreme Court’s ruling… without whining about an "activist Supreme Court" or threatening a Palin 2nd Amendment hissy fit…

OldSilkHat -

FYI: Franklin Delano Roosevelt is NOT the PRESIDENT of the USA today...he has not been president for 67 years!

Furthermore, the fact that this law has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so far, by 2-judges, does NOT bode well for its continued existence.

While it may be interesting for Walker to rant about "liberal activist judges" one should note that my low forehead friends in the Republican Party always use this phrase to charge up their base and create divisiveness... it really has no bearing on the case or its merits. Children use the same name-calling techniques.

Only time will tell just how this all shakes out. Anyone, Walker included, who states that they "are confident the state will ultimately prevail" is whistling in the wind and demonstrating an extraordinary amount of hubris...

No none knows... the ACA ruling by the Supreme Court recently should really give everyone cause to pause before they utter their speculative pronouncements.

Comrade John wrote: "Both PUBLIC unions & PRIVATE unions have FORCED the greedy corporate business owners to increase the Wages & Benefits of the economic SLAVES that they play MASTER to. "

Wow. It only took you 43 days to come up with a response, wrong as usual I might add. But my question is...what does a PUBLIC union have to do with a PRIVATE union? I really want to hear your convoluted logic on this one.

I'm betting we find out Judge Juan should have recused himself because of nepotism.

Without reading the decision, I'm guessing it has something to do with the "leftist" First Amendment that allows people to form into groups and join associations.

From the article: " quoting the judge's primary reason for his decision as " (Act 10) single(s) out and encumber(s) the rights of those employees who choose union membership "

How many DIDN'T choose membership but had it forced upon them?

learn to read - one of the biggest parts that made it unconstitutional was 1- he selected who was not allowed to bargain and did not make it for everyone (police and fire). In addiiton, the law prohibited the union members affected from ACT10 to bargain for salaries - but not for non-union. Meaning - he weasled out of saying the fire/police unions needed to be part of the law because he didn't want them turning away from him and he let is non-union croonies be able to continue getting large raises.

Ed Larsen -

Damn, IF only we could throw out that pesky 1st Amendment, then all you RED, COMMUNIST REPUBLICANS would be in your imaginary heaven...

Perhaps you are the one that needs to read Ann. I quoted one statement from the article and responded specifically to that quote.

Ed Larson -

Don't be bashful, Ed, just feed the HATE...

The Anti-Alinsky -

"How many DIDN'T choose membership but had it forced upon them?"

The same number of Americans that had DEMOCRACY forced upon them...

Public unions have become blood sucking parasites. Deal with it John W.

Ed Larsen -

Both PUBLIC unions & PRIVATE unions have FORCED the greedy corporate business owners to increase the Wages & Benefits of the economic SLAVES that they play MASTER to. That is the proximate cause of all the hatred by private business of all unions. These businesses are simply not competitive in the labor market when they want to pay a worker $9.00 and no benefits, when the same worker can walk across the street and get the same position, under a union contract, and receive $20.00 per hour, plus great benefits.

Face it, private businesses really want SLAVES not employees; their employees cannot rise out of poverty with the wage they are willing to pay. There is currently more of a need for unions NOW, than there were 100-years ago!

John Wilson.

Private unions are fine as long as both sides can say no more and walk away.

Public unions negotiate with their peers and hold the taxpayer hostage by supporting legislators that protect their interests above those of the average taxpayer.

Public employee unions are a rigged game and the taxpayer always looses.

Ed Larsen -

"Public unions negotiate with their peers and hold the taxpayer hostage by supporting legislators that protect their interests above those of the average taxpayer. Public employee unions are a rigged game and the taxpayer always looses."

There is nothing wrong with negotiating with your peers; however, that is not what public unions do... further, if you have a problem with any legislator, supposedly supporting a unions interest over the taxpayer, get rid of the LEGISLATOR!

It sounds like the LEGISLATOR is your ISSUE here, not the UNION!

Union folks, just like non-union folks are just attempting to make a living, feed their family, get out of poverty, perhaps actually get into the middle class; you know, realize the AMERICAN DREAM.

All you want to do is close down one of the best avenues for hard-working folks to transition there. [It really is the GAME; do not blame the players!]

I’m sending you a SWAT team so you will no longer have to be a hostage; every part of our great Democratic politics is rigged, you just do not see or comprehend how truly dysfunctional it has become with corporations, businesses and money driving everything…

It is nice to demonize the PUBLIC UNIONS though, at least you have SOMEONE to blame.

John Wilson said: "There is nothing wrong with negotiating with your peers; however, that is not what public unions do... further, if you have a problem with any legislator, supposedly supporting a unions interest over the taxpayer, get rid of the LEGISLATOR!

It sounds like the LEGISLATOR is your ISSUE here, not the UNION!"

What I have is problem with is the the over influence public employee unions have in the political process. How about we ban public employee union contributions to politicians.

Deal?

Ed Larsen -

"What I have is problem with is the the over influence public employee unions have in the political process. How about we ban public employee union contributions to politicians.

Deal?"

Let's ban blue-eyed, blond haired people from contributing to any politician or campaign... yah, that is unconstitutional too!

I know, let's just throw away the Constitution and make everyone just vote the way YOU WANT THEM TOO!

What a way to go!

No one is throwing away the constitution except the leftist judge in Madison and those who desperately want his decision to stand.

Yes, I too want to know how the hell this is done. I may be an idiot, but I don't get how a County Court can strike down a state law, and render ir useless

The very same liars and deceivers peddling this "legitimate law" passed another "legitimate law" that allows vets to transfer their military training to get civilian licenses IN:
TATOOING
BODY PIERCING
and FEEDING ASSITANT FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

2011 WISCONSINACT120
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/120

252.23 (4m)Military experience. Any relevant education, training, instruction, or other experience that an applicant has obtained in connection with military service, as defined in s. 111.32 (12g), counts toward satisfying standards related to education, training, instruction, or other experience for issuing a license as a tattooist if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department that the education, training, instruction, or other experience that the applicant obtained in connection with his or her military service is substantially equivalent to the education, training, instruction, or other experience that is required for the issuance of a license for a tattooist.

I think due to outrage of the original mentally retarded feeding assitant that they changed it. You read it and see if the feeding mentally retarded is buried in all the BS desinged to confuse and decieve
"146.40 (1) (aw) "Feeding assistant" means...

Jake -

"I may be an idiot..."

The jury is long since ruled on that; you are an IDIOT!

Go back to school and take a civics class.

@Mike

Here is a HINT for your first question!

Faith ‏@Faith577

@GovWalker Thank goodness there's a judicial process to provide checks/balances against "lawmaking responsibilities" of your office, Gov.

Like Many of us in the state, Mike finds it hard to believe that one activist judge would ignore the voting action of a majority of the Assembly, a majority of the Senate and the Governor to force his political views on the state. Ultimately it will be the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Anti, I think it has more to do with interpretation of the law. Law is objective, opinion is subjective. Act 10 was ALEC legislation hidden inside a "budget repair" bill, like a rancid piece of meat.

If we are patriots we want laws. Good laws. If we are anarchists we want to do whatever our "gut" or "opinions" tell us to do.

Mike Knight -

How can a RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN be so RETARDED?

Silly question: Look at the party that owns you...

Anti-Alinsky -

Sadly for you and your extreme emotionalism and partisanship, Bren really has it RIGHT!

"If we are patriots we want laws. Good laws. If we are anarchists we want to do whatever our "gut" or "opinions" tell us to do."

First Bren and John, you are mixing definitions. You have Anarchists pegged correctly in that they believe in no government and no laws. The opposite of that would be any sort of government, whether it is by an absolute monarchy, dictatorship, one-party system or elected representation. Your use of patriot, as it is commonly referred to, means active support for an elected government.

Ironic because it is one man, elected by only a tiny minority of people with a vested interest in Act 10, that made that decision. I have little doubt that this ruling was not reached impartially.

And as far as good laws, Act 10 curtailed many of the outlandish demands that have been out on public entities for years. Notably:
1) Benefits with outlandish expenses. Best example, over-paying WEA by tens of millions of dollars every year.
2) Pay raised much higher that the private sector had been for years.
3) Seniority that allowed a burnt out employee to keep his job over a newer, more effective employee.

Act 10 has been the most effective legislation that has come out of Madison for YEARS. I have little doubt this ruling will be overturned. It's just a matter of how soon.

John Wilson,

You certainly spew a lot of hatred about idiots while perpetrating the exact tendencies that would lead me to believe that your IQ is probably one of the lowest of the people on this board. Of course there is Bren who can't write a sentence without "ALEC" in it so you may be ahead of her; tough call. If you think people who want to keep the money they earned and believe they know better what to do with it would lead you to believe that they are communists then you sir are truly lost and I would completely expect you to vote for some liberal to take care of you.

And what a pile of merde you are.

"Activist Judge", def. "A judge, or judges, that does not agree with the BS espoused by TEA BAGGERS.

Stereotyping rampant, not to mention the "guy that is pointing at some teenager telling him not to drink all the while holding a big fat beer in the other hand" hypocrisy... Oh yeah, and while we're stereotyping the "activist judge", how is that truck with the souped up noisemaker/gas puking engine, the beer and wings and the wife that thinks "yarn-covered kleenex box covers" are art? I'm sorry, but the knuckle dragging in here is setting my teeth on edge...please forgive my lapse into "their level"

@Michael Pyter You mentioned Europe as en example. Well, did you know that in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland that unions have all been but eliminated. Result: your average person in those countries have no money in their wallets. Germany, France and Italy still have unions and guess what- they have money in their wallets.

@Michael McClusky

That's right. Greeks have no money because they have been making promises they can't fill. BOOM. It's coming here too.

@Ed Larson Greece has no money because they import more than they export, just like us. They also played games with the government's accounting procedures which falsified the situation that they were in. Just like us.

@Michael McClusky. Like I said coming here too. Public employee unions will not save us. But they will try to be the last affected. Sad as that is.

@Ed Larson Don't be so sad. Atleast the US can forever print more money- the Greeks cannot print Euros. We have to concentrate on better trade agreements. We have been giving the game away.

@Michael... did the unions force the auto companies to design ugly, inefficent gas hogs? Did the unions force the auto companies to continue to design, build and sell crap cars after the German and Japanese auto companies started to eat their lunch?

If you think the US would be better off without GM, Chrysler and Ford and the rest of the suppliers, then you are indeed misinformed. If GM and Chrysler hadn't been bailed out, Ford would have gone under also. The Japanese, Korean and German plants would have like closed down also as they buy from the same suppliers. You obviously know nothing about how the automobile industry operates, but that doesn't seem to stop you from having an opinion.

Just for your information, I worked in the industry for nearly seven years; working with GM, Chrysler, Ford and International Harvester.

Ford did not take Obama union bucks and is stronger than ever. They are proud that they did not travel down that dirty tube of government waste. You can not claim they would have gone under, you can claim they would have become even large with the fall of the weak over loaded union corporations like GM.

@Mrs. Peel I openly said that countries that have eliminated unions are suffering greatly. {See Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland} Without some collective bargaining power, management tends to steamroll their employees into submission. Notice how Americans' income has been declining. It parallels the decline in union membership.

@Michael the Cluck

EVERYONE, even liberals in Europe, acknowedged that Greece's unions and benefits were wayyy out of line and it was impossible to afford.

You really are a complete and total low-iq idiot to use Greece as an example in this case. What a twat.

LOLOLOL
Fun to watch two totally ignorant, illiterate, and low-iq liberal idiots argue against eachother even though they are making the same point!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you MrsPeel and Michael the Cluck.

@oak creek resident In Greece the government mismanaged their overall affairs with the introduction of the Euro. US banks didn't help out at all with their devious deals that later undermined the government's finances. The government was not only being deceptive about their finances to other euro members, they ended up even fooling themselves. Blaming only labor costs is foolhardy; there was a belief by the government that this game could be hidden indefinitely.
Name-calling is really impressive to the ignorant.

Oh those darn unintended consequences. Too funny. Public employee unions should ALL be disbanded not just curtailed. Around the country they are taking advantage of their fellow citizens to fund their bloated retirement and benefit plans. Guess what? Many of them will never get what they think they will in retirement. They will just have to live like the rest of us.

I just said this very thing to my MIL. I'm sure the left will be quite smug about this, but it will light a fire under Republicans for sure.

CentralScrutinizer -

Of course Romney will win Wisconsin and his VP, Mr. Palin, will win the 1st Congressional District...

CentralScrutinizer -

Do you want to bet me $10,000 on that?

Michele Divelbiss -

The Republicans need to have a fire light under them; they are so under-cooked and not ready for prime time playing...

You don't always get what you want. No one does.

Sure they will. As long as their "fair share" turns out to be what they were paying prior to Act 10.

Bob McBride -

Go get another drink... AA did permanently expel you...

Very true Lyle. If you can't force your will on the people legislatively, beat it into them via the court system.

And in the mean time, cities and counties are totally f*cked with their budgets.

JB -

"If you can't force your will on the people legislatively, beat it into them via the court system."

Sorry, JB, it is the CONSTITUTION that RULES here NOT your RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN BEAT 'EM UP PARTY... Of course, IF you don't like the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, you are entirely FREE to MOVE...

DAMN, you might even learn to READ the CONSTITUTION and understand that we are a NATION of LAWS... NOT JB's INANE OPINIONS...

@mau... perhaps you might want to ask your question of those guys commonly referred to as "The Founders". It sees that they thought it best to construct a tri-partite government composed of the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Executive Branch. It was referred to as having a "balance of powers".

Conservatives are always screaming about the Constitution and how it should be the governing law. Strangely, when the principles of the Constution are applied, conservatives scream to high heaven.

The Dane County judge did not "make" any law, nor did he "enforce" any law. What he did was rule on a suit that was brought before him, which amazingly enough, is exactly was the court system is responsible for doing.

The Wisconsin Attorney General will appleal this ruling and it will then go to an Appellate Court and finally to the State Supreme Court.

Why is this concept so difficult for conservatives to grasp?

Dolt.

Obama-- Bin-laden--- dead terrorists--- and you say soft on terrorist--- he is responsible for giving the orders to take this number one terrorist in the world out. sympathizer--- come on -- you are a non union worker that feels everyone should be in the same boat as you -- low pay high insurance and shaky retirement !!

Nuitari -

Very classy RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN talking points... you almost got them all... very class act...

Nuitari -

Paul Joseph Goebbels would be so PROUD of YOU!

Sounds like more layoffs coming to me. Nice victory, Morn!
Truthfully, municipalities will ignore this nonsense and life will go on.

Ignore the burned out airhead hippy. She doesn't understand a lick about budgets, expenditures, etc.

This will just result in messed up budgets for 2013, until it is overruled again. Goodbye, more union employees, enjoy the layoffs and firings that you rallied and banged drums so hard for!

I for one enjoy the irony.

m, you haven't noticed your freedom of speech getting gone? Maybe you aren't a Christian. Going up in flames overseas. The world is on fire. The middle east policy is collapsing in front of your eyes. Aren't you worried? I am! And thanks to that car union, there are NO jobs in Keno, including those to immigrants. Nice victory. Ghost town. Gone before Walker ever was Governer. Missed that too, eh?

m = dipsh*t retard

Wow! It took till comment #42 before the Koch Bros. were mentioned.

They are slipping....

May as well get ALEC out of the way too

LOLOLOL m you are a perfect example of a slow, dimwitted brainwashed idiot liberal.

keep up the good work, kid.

"until their demands are satisfied. ..."
Dorothy, get a grip. Their demands will never be satisfied. That is why we enacted Act 10. Wisconsin is better off now. Taxpayers are better off. And at the end of the day, the children will be better off too, now that WI is no longer in the fiscal hole that didn't seem to bother you. Shameful! Government workers have no other rights that would usurp the rest of us. Including the noxious ability to hold us hostage for so-called free health care.

Thank you Dorothy! Facts in the face of ignorance is always more effective than name-calling.

GearHead -

"until their demands are satisfied. ..."

This is the RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PARTY, whose lust for power over the worker will NEVER be satisfied...

When workers will only be allowed to make $3.00 and hour, GearHead will step forward and pay ALL the taxes that are needed to run the RED COMMUNIST PARTY, but certainly NOT the GOVERNMENT...

That's what happens when your Head is a Gear...

morninmist -

It is called the" Moammar Walker Badge.

Bill Alexander -

Forget it!

That takes WORK!

Besides, RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICANS (NEVER) grow up - they just develop 56" waists and massively corpulent derrieres…

You apparently had blinders on this past 1.5 years.

Spudlovr -

Someone should inform the intellectual midget, "oak creek resident" that this is not a forum for bar talk and there is a CONSTITUTION that decides what is LAW… NOT his personal vomit…

They deserve nothing and continue down the road of disrespect from their never ending give me give me train of handouts. If you think they deserve more in compensation open up your wallet and write the check. If you actually think this will stand you didn't pay attention June 5th.

So how much are you writing this check for?

Today justice prevailed and reminded you and Walker that WE are NOT going away.

You are a cancer that will continue to be defeated. Thank you for pumping up the silent majority once again, November is so close and we never forget.

Steve is correct. The dust was settled on this and now an idiot judge launched an RPG into the political ring, irritating the Right once again. Dumb liberals, you are just going to repeat the resentment we had over the recall, and come November, we will lock this state up for Romney. Thanks!

Steve -

In the words of your RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT: "Bring it on!"

We have been, we crushed your malignant cancer blue fister types on June 5th. Short memory?

Steve ® -

You and Boffa should get married...

When I was in Madison they were singing outside because of a state conference (they have an arrangement, you see). A terrifying group of retirees, vets, people with physical disabilities, and a few students.

Now there is the new law that gatherings of four or more (other than family groups or lobbyists) must get prior permission. That's keeping We the People at bay for political purposes. I'm guessing that the Koch-funded lobbyists in their new office across from the State Capitol must number in the four+ range. ; )

@ nanny: Try putting down the bong before you post next time, please! We have enough altered Patchers already! Your music sounds like disturbing the peace to some of us. Not to mention violating any sense of moral decency. Truth is, if my side actually came out and protested your idiotic antics, you would be humbled.

And none of this will have any impact on Act 10, the law of the land. But it will expose more idiot activists. Thanks again for the gift that keeps giving.

Did someone say bong?

Bren - get medication for your Koch psychosis. And stop rocking back and forth. It is very unbecoming.

How about taking a real close look at the Koch brothers and find out how much they donate for cancer centers around the country.

TwatJean. Employees are harassed to the point of tears by some of these marxist terrorists. I wish they tried it with me, one less conscious liberal.

Ima, please prove that I have a "Koch psychosis," and, provide evidence that convinces me that the evidence that the Koch brothers fund ALEC and a number of other Super PACs. That's the medicine I need. If you can't do either of these, direct your ignorant comments elsewhere. Thanks,

Hey Progress....

Most of the TeaRight Wing only understand their loyalty to Walker INC.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169968/wisconsin-judge-rules-walkers-anti-labor-law-unconstitutional#

............It also means that union activists who framed their mass protests in February and March of 2011 on constitutional lines, arguing that their rights were under attack, may well have understood the real issues better than the governor or his legislative allies.

“As we have said from day one, Scott Walker’s attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin’s public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab,” Phil Neuenfeldt, the president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said Friday night. “Now, a court has ruled that the essential provisions of Act 10, Scott Walker’s draconian attack on public worker’s right to collectively bargain, is unconstitutional.” .......

Those two things are related how? Go buy you self a copy of "Government for Dummies" and read it before you embarass yourself any further.

"Raving." mau, any consideration in your interesting brain that the judge could actually be competent and that ALEC collective bargaining cookie cutter legislation may actually not have been vetted for our state's laws before handed over to our GOP rubber stamp state legislature?

It's not as if Scott Walker would catch something like this. Remember that his illegal furloughs and firings of Milwaukee County workers have cost taxpayers over $5 million.

First off I'm not embarrassing myself. As we ALL know, the recall elections were a result of Act 10. The democrats went out and collected signatures to recall the Republicans who voted for Act 10. Now that Act 10 is deemed overturned (and not Constitutional), then the recalls that were a result of this same overturned legislation, are also overturned (and not Constitutional).

Good going Bren. Can't have a conversation without your secret lover ALEC on your mind.

mau, the legal filings were mutually exclusive. Unconstitutionality can't be based on relational motivations.

"...your secret lover, ALEC." I'm not sure if you, like some others, can't tell the difference between human-made constructs (such as a corporation or special interest organization) and a real human being. Do you wave "hello" to buildings as you pass by? What's going on here?

I was always trained that there was nothing wrong with asking a question. The worst social mistake was to come off as ignorant, talking without knowing facts in front of people who do. It's embarrassing to see.

To her/his Mighty Highness Bren, blah blah blah.

I apologize Bren, I was mistaken that ALEC is a male name.

Alec: Greek and English origin, defending men
Diminutive of Alexander, originally popular in Scotland.

So who crowned you King and God, that you can brand my comments and opinions as "The worst social mistake was to come off as ignorant, talking without knowing facts in front of people who do. It's embarrassing to see."

How arrogant can you be. Especially after reading your tripe. You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking you are better than me and putting me and my comments down.

mau, ALEC in this instance is an acronym, which is clearly indicated by the use of capital letters.

You amuse with your projectionist accusations and insults. It's not arrogant to draw attention to ignorance and exposing it for what it is. I surmise you are intelligent, yet you frequently expound inaccuracies, "ignoring" the facts. You may be capable of more sophisticated dialogue and it would be a pleasure to see it.

Have you considered anger management classes!

2Ed Larson...the Volt was designed prior to the Bailout. GM does not "actually lose" $39K per car, as the startup costs, engineering costs, and design costs are being amortized across a small number of cars at this point. As more Volts are sold the costs will be amortized against more units.

Apparently you also don't understand how the accounting works in a manufacturing company? Do you think Ford recovered all start-up costs on the first 50,000 Mustangs sold? The answer is no.

So you would rather have the largest industry in the US shut down and bankrupt?

Perhaps you should buy a clue.

►As more Volts are sold the costs will be amortized against more units.◄

The Volt is not selling, or is it currently being produced.

Mrs Peel fails to consider the likelihood no more Volts will be sold any time soon.

Ed Larsen -

For all you folks responding to Ed's marginally coherent posts, please remember that he is still wearing his original loin cloth and he still resides in his orignal cave...

I am going to guy buy as much Koch Industry goods as I can - thanks for the link!

@Oak, let me guess you are one of those...

oak creek resident -

Well, that will be about $3.00 worth of goods at your miniscule salary...

Apparently the other 88% of us figured out how to get by just fine without a union. Take out the public aspect which has zero competition and it is even higher. Please don't leave out the part where the liberal friends of unions in government mandate union labor on jobsites. I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.

You have no idea how a multi national corporation works, but you do know how to type Koch, please tell us more

@Steve,

If you don't make more than 250K a year then you are arguing against your own best interest, PERIOD!

What's the deal, do you feel one day you will be like them and have a big nice bank account and you can take advantage of lower taxes. Is it because you just hate the black man, or is it you just listen to the likes of Fox and Rush where you have forgotten how to use critical thinking skills and ignore logic and facts, or all 3!

I don't need to take from others by force to make myself feel like a better, more accomplished person.

Yes, they are laughing at those that argue against their best interest.....They have the likes of Fox and Rush to brain wash these folks, SAD!

And this has to do with ACT 10 how?

Exactly Jay!

@Steve
Being in your bubble prevents your brain from functioning. Try doing some reading on the benefits of unions before you ask more silly questions.

Steve ®

12:30 am on Saturday, September 15, 2012

And this has to do with ACT 10 how?

ACT 10 has to do with PUBLIC unions. Jay speaks of PRIVATE unions employees. Lay down the crack pipe for a second.

Liberal activist judge? What about conservative activist governor and legislature that take away rights in an unconstitutional manner. These folks love to scream at judges that reign in thier abuse of authority since they are prevented from acting like tyrants. Reactionary is not progress

CentralScrutinizer -

Have you graduated from kindergarten yet?

CentralScrutinizer -

That's only because that hole is your 8' diameter mouth!

@Craig Johnson, Of course you are making the gigantic assumption that the judge has ruled correctly. I smell desperation.

I’m afraid for my fellow Patriots, it seems winning elections no longer matters. With radical Progressive Judges on the bench for life, a mainstream media propaganda machine pumping out radical Progressive messages 24-7, 47% of America not paying Federal taxes and illegal aliens being allowed to vote. I’m afraid the Constitution maybe be in jeopardy. It looks like at some point our Patriotic movement must change from a Conservative voting block to a counter-revolutionary resistance focused on mucking up the political machine.

AWD, I consider Supreme Court Justice John Roberts a "radical" judge because he chose to re-argue Citizens United v. State of Michigan. That makes me far more "afraid" when the highest court in the land, members given life terms to ensure impartiality, swings partisan.

I'm sure there will be argument on Act 10 for quite some time.

Absolutely. Walker is all about the rights of people with money.

@ AWD
Let's look at who the 47% of people are who pay no income Taxes:

" 7,000 people made more than $1 million but paid no income tax.
22,000 people made between $500,000 and $1 million but paid no income tax.
81,000 people made between $200,000 and $500,000 but paid no income tax.
381,000 people made between $100,000 and $200,000 but paid no income tax.

So that's 491,000 Americans who made more than $100,000 a year who paid no income tax. (Clearly dependent victims who refuse to take responsibility for their lives!)"
: http://www.businessinsider.com/7000-millionaires-paid-no-income-tax-2012-9#ixzz26wKVgZGT

Many Seniors also pay no income tax. The reason many other working families pay no income tax is that they benefit from tax programs instituted by Republicans (i.e.: EIC and child credit). These are programs that were put in place as an incentive for people to work. These people do pay payroll taxes into the so called entitlement programs. Corporate Welfare is more expensive and less beneficial to the economy than the money spent to help the poor. Every dollar that goes to help the poor is put directly back into the economy at a rate of 140% when you consider the money multiplier. Most money that goes to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks and loopholes goes unspent and often times out of the country benefiting the economy nothing.

WOW Robert. That's the biggest stretch yet.

Yes, everyone has a right to redress grievances... AS CITIZENS!!! Not as Employees. As a citizen, the government could (like won't but could) start eroding away your rights for free speech, assembly, due process, etc. AS employees, if they don't like the work conditions, they have a right to find another job. AS employers, government entities should have the power to set wages, benefits and work conditions, provides they do not violate things like safety laws.

By your argument, we should allow the military to unionize. How effective would that work as a fighting force?

Amen.

Funny, but in 30 years as a lawyer, and after reading the First Amendment hundreds of times, I've never seen the exception for government workers you claim. Would you be so kind as to point out the language that you claim to create that exception?

Your reference to the military makes a good point, but it overlooks the law. The First Amendment, like the Second, is not absolute. The government is permitted to limit first amendment or second amendment rights if necessary to further compelling state interests. As you note, the mil an on military unions is justified by the compelling need for strict lines of command. A similarly compelling interest supports a ban on strikes by public safety employees. However, there is no legitimate, let alone compelling, state interest furthered by restricting the rights of government workers in general to organize to speak freely, to assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances.

Robert, how many times has an employee, private or public sector, gone to you and claimed that his employer was stifling his First Amendment rights? I don't believe the founding father's meant for the redress of grievances to apply to one group of people, such as public employees. And, by forcing public unionism on state and local entities, aren't you then ignoring the taxpayer's right to pay a reasonable amount of taxes? By addressing employee grievances, such as increased pay and benefits, you are forcing them to pay a higher tax without being able to address that increase properly, such as using their First Amendment right to free speech to say we are taxed enough already.

Anti-Alinsky -

“I don't believe the founding fathers meant for the redress of grievances to apply to one group of people, such as public employees. And, by forcing public unionism on state and local entities, aren't you then ignoring the taxpayer's right to pay a reasonable amount of taxes?”

It is refreshing that you BELIEVE that YOU KNOW what the founding fathers MEANT… however, as with most BELIEFS, you should entertain the thought that you are mistaken… ultimately, the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT will decide, just what the founding fathers MEANT…

Please provide a reference in the CONSTITUTION to where “… the taxpayer’s right to pay a reasonable amount of taxes” is shown.

Factually, these $$$ bills are almost exclusively dedicate to gaining power for one side while demonizing the other. FAIRNESS, to the lowly taxpayer, is simply a non-issue…

Federal, state and local governments are NOT at all interested, when it comes to tax policy, budgets and $$$ in FAIRNESS TO THE LOWLY TAXPAYER; they, again, are only interested in getting your $$$, making the opposition look bad and amassing more political power.

The JUDICIARY, on the other hand, typifies the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE; however, you RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICANS reject the rulings of the courts, unless they fall within the narrow confines of your own extremely limited ideology of ME, ME, ME!

Neither the CONSTITUTION nor any other legally ruling document guarantees you FAIRNESS IN TAXATION…

Anti- a couple of things. First, the First Amendment only limits government action. I therefor would not expect anyone with any knowledge of the constitution to use it as a basis to argue that a private company is barred from limiting the free speech of its employees. Other statutes may apply in that circumstance, but the constitution on its own would not.

Second, guessing what the Founding Fathers might have done in a particular circumstance is inherently influenced by what the guesser would want. After all, the guesser, like you here, already has made up his mind and naturally would assume that they would think the same way. However, the first Amendment does not have a "government employee exception" and neither you nor the courts can write one into it. That would be judicial activism based on politics, not law.

Third, nothing about the First Amendment guaranties a particular result from free speech. The remedy for speech that you might not like, such as the right of one person or group to petition the government (whether an employee union or a rich folk's union like ALEC or Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce) is not censorship, but more speech. Taxpayers have a voice, indeed many conflicting voices. Nothing in either the First Amendment or any other part of the Constitution guaranties that any particular group of voices will always control. What matters is that no voice is silenced due to disagreement with the substance of that person's speech.

JW, NO-ONE, not even you KNOW exactly what the founding fathers intended. We do the best we can by reading sources written by them, such as James Madison’s Journals or the Federalist Papers. However, I think it is safe to say that of all the issues that the patriots fought for, taxes were at the top of the list. While not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, can you honestly tell me that taxes were not a concern? Madison writes about the debates on taxes. Hamilton goes into detail about them in the Federalist Papers. (no do not ask for specifics, it’s been years and I don’t have time. What I do remember is that Hamilton seemed to argue both sides for a long time).

In fact, I find it telling that Article 1 section 7 of the US Constitution limits revenue collection to originate in the “people’s house”, the House of Representatives.

And as Robert points out right after you, “nothing about the First Amendment guaranties a particular result from free speech.”, which I think goes to the heart of the matter. Three years ago my company had to reevaluation it’s health care benefits. Management asked for a committee as well as individual input. While we were heard, it was management that made the final decision.

You have still made huge stretch by equating employment rights of public employees with civil rights.

Anti-Alinsky -

"JW, NO-ONE, not even you KNOW exactly what the founding fathers intended.”

Well, in your previous post YOU indicated that YOU DID...

You went even further to indicate that taxpayers had a RIGHT to some euphemistically REASONABLE TAXES…

“I don't believe the founding fathers meant for the redress of grievances to apply to one group of people, such as public employees. And, by forcing public unionism on state and local entities, aren't you then ignoring the taxpayer's right to pay a reasonable amount of taxes?”

NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS!

You really don’t know either; you really can’t site any reference(s) to either in the CONSTITUTION to substantiate your claims… hence, your post is nothing more than feelings and opinion…

And that is OKAY; just, please, do NOT represent them as FACTS…

JW, where did I say I KNEW what our founding fathers intended? I qualified EVERYTHING with “I believe”! No, I do not know but neither do you. But we can attempt to discern that intend by reading other sources as mentioned above.

And I do have a RIGHT not to expect to pay an unreasonable amount of taxes. While the US Constitution is an important document, an equally important document is the Declaration of Independence. The latter asserts our right to self-governance, while the former details how we do it. Having established that, one of the self-evident truths in the Declaration states: “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

As a citizen in a Republic, (state and federal), I have a right to participate in elections. And when my elected representatives have passed legislation I agree with, I have an expectation that those laws will be carried out! In Act 10’s case, I now have the reasonable expectation that my taxes will not be raised to make up for the shortfall because the business climate in this state was destroyed by eight years of Diamond Jim Doyle and his cronies!

It amazes me that you scream about rights when Conservative legislation is passed, but don’t hesitate to ignore them when something like Barack Hussein Obamacare pops up.

John and Anti - Once again, name calling does nothing to further the discussion. Neither of you will be deterred by such attempted intimidation, so perhaps we can stick to the facts and get back to where this thread started, which is that state workers have a constitutional right, based in the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, to joint action, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Anti is correct that the imposition of taxes WITHOUT REPRESENTATION was a major cause of the Revolution. Of course, any taxes imposed by the state or federal government are passed by representatives of the people. This is a republic, after all. So, that argument does not change the fact that the constitution protects the right to public employee unions.

Second, in your reading of history, you may recall a little thing called the Whiskey Rebellion, in which President George Washington rode at the head of 15,000 militia to put down a violent revolt against taxes on whiskey. Although the tax later was repealed, that action reinforced the fact that the Founding Fathers were not opposed to appropriate taxation and that nothing in the Constitution guaranteed that citizens could refuse to pay properly imposed taxes. They have a right to object, but they do not have a right to not pay taxes.

Robert when was the First Amendment changed to add ... "joint action"? Is this another interpretation of "right of the people peaceably to assemble" so that you can make the stretch that we have to give in to public employee's demands?

I couldn't have said it any better when you wrote: "“nothing about the First Amendment guaranties a particular RESULT from free speech” (emphasis added). Of course, when the government crosses a line, we change it at the next election. Guess what, you had your chance to change that government in June and you failed. You couldn't convince most of the voters in this state that your failed ways were better.

So now you celebrate one man overturning the expressed will of the people. That's where the real Shame comes in!

Anti - There is nothing new about the First Amendment protecting the right to joint action. That's what the rights to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances is all about.

Does the First Amendment right of government workers to join together to protect their rights though collective bargaining mean that we have to cave in to every demand made by them? Of course not. Never has meant that and never will. It merely means that government workers, like the wealthy, are entitled to join together to pursue their own interests through joint action. Nothing new there.

The shame here is not that a Court, designated by the Constitution to make such decisions, complied with his constitutional duty to invalidate a legislative enactment that violated the state and federal constitutions. The shame is that the executive and legislative branches violated their obligations and oaths of office by passing an unconstitutional law in the first place.

Anti - BTW, regardless of our disagreement on this issue, I do recognize and appreciate your decision to raise the civil level of this particular discussion. Thank you.

Anti-Alinsky -

Gee, Anti, if you walk back, qualify and re-qualify your original statements, concerning your BELIEF in UNDERSTANDING what the founding fathers MEANT and the FACT that you had a RIGHT to FAIR TAXES… you will be right back where you presumably started… in a fallopian tube as a gamete…

Non-government employees are too stupid to to be public water supply workers??? Teachers??? Nurses???
Dave, You should thank God that you had a union to protect your job as an educator, you would not have made it for a minute in the private sector.

Dave you are coming across as a pretty stupid, dimwitted individual.

Give me a non-union teacher, nurse, water worker over a union one anyday!

oak creek resident -

Apparently, you had a non-union teacher, nurse, water worker over a union one, and it did NOT work out too well for you, as you still come across as a pretty stupid, dimwitted individual...

Who else would admit to being an “oak creek resident” - pretty safe & friendly environment!

Thank's Dave! Facts are much more convincing than the distortions and mindless name calling used by so many commenters.

@ john wilson
Dude you make NO sense. Why not admit about living in Oak Creek, a safe and friendlyh environment as you call it?

You see, I am quite intelligent, degreed, with a good job, so I chose to live here for my family. I am sorry that you suck as a provider, and I feel sorry for your kids if you have any.

In your own words, you'd rather live in an unsafe and unfriendly environment - I hope natural selection comes in to play here.

oak creek resident –

I am always happy to engage in an informed discussion with a self-described narcissist: “You see, I am quite intelligent, degreed, with a good job, so I chose to live here for my family. I am sorry that you suck as a provider, and I feel sorry for your kids if you have any.”

I am pleased that you are “quite intelligent, degreed, with a good job…” and, at some point in time I will look forward to a demonstration of this “quite intelligent, degreed, with a good job…” person actually showing up with something more meaningful to say – on topic – than how great he thinks he is…

This really is not Dr. Phil, you know…

@John Wilson
Ok if Oak Creek is such a horrible place to live, then where do you call home? And what profession makes you better than everyone else?

And yes I am in charge of union employees, but who said I don't get anywhere with them? All i said is that the ones who whine the most about act 10 are the worst employees.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, son. Maybe that's why you are a union shlub - because you can't read.

Amen.

"Only a fool thinks that anyone is depriving working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."
- Greg

dee50 -

Well, you are describing Ed Larsen to a TEE!

Greg -

Have you found a job since the Tampax factory laid you off in 1998?

Yep.
Once again, you prove you know nothing.

I might vote for Tammy just so no one accuses me of having a war on women, or whatever she claims to be.

Bewildered -

We have not begun to rile you cretins up yet... we have a monster surprise for you RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICANS on October 15th!

Morninmist -

Moammar Walker and his ilk have never been know for temperment, humility or thoughful action or responses... with their total inability to learn clearly demonstrated, what makes you think that would change now?

This ruling did more damage to Government sector unions, in Wisconsin, than it did to Governor Walker.

Ah but we are not going away:

Scott Williams ‏@PGscottwilliams

Appleton school official thinks unions will want to "undo" contract concessions approved under law found unconstitutional. #wiunion

Moronmist, why do you list this garbage as if they are Walker's failures. These were all nothing more than the little individual tantrums you liberal babies had to screw the rest of us over.

You damn well know the mining project would have passed if someone other than Walker was in office at the time. It never was about the environment. Your side just didn't want him to get any credit for the jobs it would have brought.

The Wheels are coming off of the TEAPublican covered wagon all over the country. Two national composoite polls are showing President Obama winning with over 310+ Electoral Votes.

And just for "shits and grins", TEAPublican Rick Santorum, speaking at the "Values Voters Summit", "We (Conservative) will never have the smart people on our side"

Nuitari, you've hit it right on the head. This is the last great hissy fit being thrown by the Blue Fisters on the left. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had Act 10 in front of themselves already. They had an opportunity to rule then on the points Juan Colas made in his judgement. The Blue Fisters are just praying that this ruling survives an appellate court ruling, AND the Supreme Court ruling.

I have no doubt it will be shot down in both and this will just be more of a waste of time.

One last thought, now that the law is temporarily "null and void" how many left leaning school systems that didn't learn their lesson the first time will try to rush through another two year contract extension?

UM, morninmist. Haven't we mentioned before about unbiased sources. Just a cursory read of root river siren's blog indicates it is full of bias and false hope.

Why you Liberals seem to think a ruling by a Dane County judge is the final victory is beyond me.

If you are familiar with these blogs on The Patch, it will move on the next divisive article and this string will fade away. It is probably for the best that we have a place to vent rather than letting it fester and come out in more harmful ways. Even with all the opposing points of view I do pick up some useful information.

Rees Roberts -

It stops at the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT - IF they elect to accept the case...

IF they do NOT accept the case, then the last Appelate Court ruling in this case will simply stand as final LAW.

Wisconsin and all the fine residents of this state will go on with their daily lives, struggling to feed and clothe their families, some a little happier, some a little sadder, but life will go on...

Mr. Hoffa, with all due respect, your perceived need to resort to name calling strongly suggests that you are unconvinced by you own argument and instead believe that the only way to win you point is to intimidate those you oppose with intimidation. In short, it undermines any valid point might actually be buried within your comment.

As for what substance is in your comment, you seem to focus your entire conclusion that the decision is wrong on your insistence on overlooking that unionization and collective bargaining exemplifies the rights to free speech, to associate, to assemble, and TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GREIVANCES (you omitted that last one). State employees are no less Constitutionally entitled to act together for their own interests vis a vis the government than are unions of rich folks like ALEC, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, or Americans for Prosperity, entitled to act together to promote their own interests.

Your analysis thus is fundamentally flawed, based on your political views rather than the law, and it is not saved by your misplaced name calling.

JRH –

It is wonderful to see that you found the energy to roll out of your cave and share your ever so eloquent meanderings with us.

These are indeed sage words and analysis, by the restaurant sitter that needs 3-chairs to sit down on, 2-complete tables for his enormous head – think Christy here - and he delivers judicial pronouncements akin to his brother jurist, Antonin Scalia...

Indeed, with this bellicose, bullying and belligerent presentation one would almost think that Hoffa was somehow on some solid judicial footing here and entirely sure of his position.

Except that, well, the ever-pedantic bully of the Patch also said the very same things, in the same self-serving manner regarding how the Supreme Court would summarily dismiss OBAMACARE as being clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

It is, indeed, sad to see so much sound and fury being unleashed upon the general public… signifying absolutely nothing…

Personally, I’ll wait for the REAL COURT to rule… Robert is correct…

@Huff

You and the Walker are two peas in a pod!

John Nichols: Scott Walker reduced to name-calling to defend struck-down Act 10

http://m.host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-scott-walker-reduced-to-name-calling-to-defend/article_f444b3f6-fead-11e1-afb4-001a4bcf887a.html

.....Instead of using the Constitution as a prop for his latest campaign tour, the governor might want to take a few minutes to read it. If he did, Walker would recognize that it is the duty of the judicial branch to check and balance the authoritarian excesses of the executive branch. That is how a great state, and a great nation, maintain what James Madison intended — the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of misguided men.

I think you forgot about the Legislative branch.

Ah Hoffa, I was looking around for one of these stories in which you commented.

You seem to have missed the point of the decision though: "However, in its decision, the Court never qualified how collective bargaining constitutes free speech or association, and thus protect-able under those constitutional provisions."

Thing is, the what the decision actually says is "It is undisputed that there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining" (near bottom of page 14), so your focus on the idea that the court was upholding collective bargaining as a constitutional right comes only from your own imagination. Then you're commenting as if you had read the decision, but it's clear that you skimmed it at best.

The meat is that if municipal employees elect to exercise their constitutional right to associate with others in a union - a perfectly legal organization - they have to give up their ability to negotiate with their employer on anything but an inflation increase in the sum total of base wages. Thus Act 10 impairs exercise of their constitutional right to free association.

If Act 10 had banned public employee unions entirely, or placed the same negotiation restrictions upon individuals, it would have had a better chance of passing constitutional muster. But it didn't so it doesn't.

@Geoff Tolley -

As you've correctly pointed out, Act 10 limits the negotiations that the union can do on behalf of its members to the sole issue of wages. However, it does not restrict the individual members from privately negotiating all other terms of employment with their public employers, as you and the Court have erroneously and implicitly asserted, does it?

As far as Act 10 is concerned, the union members are free to negotiate all other terms of employment with their public employers on an individual basis, just not collectively. Just because they are union members, the law doesn't limit their voices from being heard on all other factors of employment, does it? Where does it state in Act 10 that an employee belonging to a union cannot freely negotiate all non-wage aspects of employment directly and individually with their public sector employer? Hoffa has looked at Act 10 repeatedly and I can't find any statutory scheme that accomplishes such a feat. Can you? If the Court did, don't you think it would have been nice for the judge to expressly include the full text of such statutory scheme in his decision?

There is no disparate treatment of union and nonunion employees here, as you and the Court have erroneously asserted and cannot support with reference to the text of the Act, as it doesn't exist in reality. There is no constitutional violation here.

To assert that a union must be permitted to engage in all negotiation regarding the terms of employment on behalf of its members in order to pass constitutional muster under the free speech and free association clauses is essentially tantamount to a holding that collective bargaining as a whole is constitutionally protected.

While the Court may have expressly denied this premise in its decision, it implicitly supports it in its findings and ruling. Although the Court went to great lengths to conceal this glaring contradiction, it becomes apparent when logically analyzed with an open mind.

The decision will be OVERTURNED!

"As far as Act 10 is concerned, the union members are free to negotiate all other terms of employment with their public employers on an individual basis, just not collectively."

So you think that under Act 10 public employees get to delegate their contract negotiation to their union and then, once a municipality signs it, they get to rescind that delegation and get terms added individually? That would violate the contract clause for municipal employers, and I suggest that you stop digging that hole.

"To assert that a union must be permitted to engage in all negotiation regarding the terms of employment on behalf of its members in order to pass constitutional muster under the free speech and free association clauses is essentially tantamount to a holding that collective bargaining as a whole is constitutionally protected."

Contrary to your assertions, you clearly haven't read the decision. Employees must have the *same* negotiation rights with public employers regardless of whether they choose to do so through a (legal) union or individually. The problem is that Act 10 restricted the subjects of negotiation for unionized and non-unionized employees *differently*, not that it restricted them as you keep on trying to assert without basis.

JRH –

Yes, of course it will, because Hoffa said it, just as Hoffa said the Supreme Court would rule OBAMACARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This will not be decided in the near future and really is nothing immediate for anyone to get too exercised over; however, there are immediate issues for Walker, the schools and the unions who engaged in alleged “illegal contracts” while “Act 10” was trolling around in the courts… this is going to be a colossal mess for the entire state…

Governmental overreach typically creates such fun times…

You will excuse me if I wait for the REAL COURTS to render the FINAL DECISION here…

Geoff:

Wouldn't it depend on what is negotiated for the contract? If the union contract dictates specific items (class size, hours, etc.), there would be no need to rescind anything to negotiate other items (wages) individually.

@Geoff Tolley -

"So you think that under Act 10 public employees get to delegate their contract negotiation to their union and then, once a municipality signs it, they get to rescind that delegation and get terms added individually?"

No, that's not what Hoffa said at all. Again, for those public employees that choose to be a part of the union, they are only delegating their contract negotiation to their union on the sole issue of wages. They do not get to rescind that delegation after a contract is signed, as they made the decision to be a part of the union. All other terms of employment cannot be included in new union contracts, per the effective implementation of Act 10. Thus the employee must negotiate those terms with the public employer individually, which Act 10 does not prevent them from doing so

"Employees must have the *same* negotiation rights with public employers regardless of whether they choose to do so through a (legal) union or individually."

And they do under Act 10. All employees, whether union or nonunion, individually contract all non-wage aspects regarding the terms of employment with the public employer. If an employee chooses to be a part of the union, they are merely delegating their negotiation rights in regards to wages to their union, but retain their rights to individually negotiate all other terms of employment with the public employer, just like non-unionized employees. If an employee chooses not to be a part of the union, then they get to individually negotiate wages with their public employer as well.

Again, if you believe that Act 10 prohibits a unionized public employee from individually negotiating all other terms of employment other than wages with their public employers, then please provide the section of the Act that accomplishes this feat. Without being able to definitely show how Act 10 prevents unionized employees from individually negotiating all other terms of employment, your argument, and the decision of the Court, fails!

@John Wilson -

The only way in which Obamacare was upheld by the S. Court as being constitutional was because one justice decided, sua sponte, to fundamentally re-write the statute, replacing the word 'penalty' with the word 'tax.' Such judicial activism cannot be anticipated by anyone with any respect or knowledge of our Constitution and the principles of co-equal branches, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

Even if Obamacare is not repealed, Hoffa has little doubt that it will NOT survive Constitutional muster once the first taxpayer who is subjected to this tax/penalty is able to sustain a standing action against it in the courts, as the mandate/tax/penalty clearly violates Article I Section 9's prohibition against capitation and direct taxation because it is not levied in proportion to the census (it expressly exempts low income, Amish, Native American citizens, and others) and does not qualify as an income tax pursuant to the 16th Amendment, as such has term has been traditionally defined by precedent decisions.

It would take another activist decision or a constitutional amendment to uphold the individual mandate found in Obamacare!

As the state will be successful on appeal, Hoffa has little doubt that JB Van Hollen's request for a stay of the decision holding Act 10 null and void pending appeal will be appropriately granted, thus the opportunity for a mess to arise will be quickly abrogated.

@JRH: ""Employees must have the *same* negotiation rights with public employers regardless of whether they choose to do so through a (legal) union or individually."

And they do under Act 10. All employees, whether union or nonunion, individually contract all non-wage aspects regarding the terms of employment with the public employer. If an employee chooses to be a part of the union, they are merely delegating their negotiation rights in regards to wages to their union, but retain their rights to individually negotiate all other terms of employment with the public employer, just like non-unionized employees. If an employee chooses not to be a part of the union, then they get to individually negotiate wages with their public employer as well."

No they don't. § 111.70(3)(a)4 (http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/111/IV/70/3/a/4) (which was amended by Act 10 - https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/acts/10/221) prohibits municipalities from making contracts with individual employees that are not superceded by a collective bargaining agreement.

Under Act 10, public employees are artificially coerced into giving up their constitutionally-protected right to freely associate. Continually asserting the contrary does not somehow make you anything but wrong.

JRH –

It is exceedingly sad to see one attempt to rationalize an obvious wrong-headed decision – to get in front of a Supreme Court decision or any Court decision for that matter – and, with your usual bluster, categorically state, very emotionally too, I might add, OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I will say that your many rationalizations seem to be prima facie evidence of a mens rea…

You were/are wrong… it really is as simple as that. Most humans are wrong a lot… that is one of many different ways we learn…

‘...Hoffa has little doubt that JB Van Hollen's request for a stay of the decision holding Act 10 null and void pending appeal will be appropriately granted, thus the opportunity for a mess to arise will be quickly abrogated.’

I am more temperate in my assessment of that forthcoming ruling and subsequently will wait for it; meanwhile, there are, already talks regarding opening up contracts at several schools with unions occurring as I write…

@Geoff Tolley -

The statutory section that you've cited would only prevent a municipal employer from contracting with unionized employees individually on the issue of wages "while collective bargaining, mediation, or fact-finding concerning the terms and conditions of a new collective bargaining agreement is in progress," because by joining a union, the employee has delegated their negotiation authority on the issue of wages to their union, which is consistent with Hoffa's assessment of the situation. Remember, you must consider the entire statutory scheme when reading/interpreting statutory sections.

You still have not effectively shown how Act 10 prevents unionized public employees from being able to individually negotiate on all other non-wage terms of employment with a public employer.

@John Wilson -

There's no element of intent or emotion behind Hoffa's assessment of the Obamacare ruling! It's merely an assessment premised upon the objective FACTS of the situation, as they stand.

You appear to believe that the constitutional fight over Obamacare is over - nothing could be more naive or incorrect. Just wait for the first citizen suit to be filed under the implementation of the penalty/tax/mandate. In fact, Hoffa is thinking about filing a pro-se action in the federal court when the IRS attempts to enforce the penalty/tax/mandate on him, premised on the grounds that Hoffa has previously cited.

Allow Hoffa to be clear about the Act 10 stay- the stay will come from the Court of Appeals and not from Colas. Hoffa doesn't know why Van Hollen is wasting his time with the motion for stay in front of Colas. JB should file the state's claim of appeal and make the motion before the appellate court, as that's where such motion will be effectively granted. Colas isn't going to admit that his decision may possibly be wrong, as then there would be no need for an appeal - he could simply issue an order setting aside his erroneous decision and issue a new decision that actually conforms with the reality of the situation.

"The statutory section that you've cited would only prevent a municipal employer from contracting with unionized employees individually on the issue of wages "while collective bargaining, mediation, or fact-finding concerning the terms and conditions of a new collective bargaining agreement is in progress," because by joining a union, the employee has delegated their negotiation authority on the issue of wages to their union, which is consistent with Hoffa's assessment of the situation. Remember, you must consider the entire statutory scheme when reading/interpreting statutory sections."

Now you're just playing dumb. You clearly saw my link and decided to conveniently excise the part of that says "[...] unless such individual contracts contain express language providing that the contract is subject to amendment by a subsequent collective bargaining agreement". So much for "consider[ing] the entire statutory scheme" when you can't even be bothered to read /the very next words/.

Who would negotiate the bit of that collective contract that amends any earlier, individual one? The union couldn't - Act 10 explicitly forbade it. I suppose you think the other party to those municipality-union negotiations would negotiate really hard with itself on all those non-base-wage issues before signing on the dotted line. Doesn't actually matter: unionized employees get zero representation beyond the base wage/CPI issue. The non-unionized do.

@Geoff Tolley -

You're not making any sense. First off, Act 10 did nothing to effect the statutory language that you're now relying upon. Second, why would the individual contracts pertaining to non-wage issues need to be amended merely because of the existence of a subsequently negotiated union CB contract pertaining to the sole issue of wages?

I'm beginning to suspect that for some reason or another, you are working under the presumptive believe that all terms of employment with a public employer must be contained within a single contract in order to be legally valid. That is not the case.

The union can negotiate a contract for wages for their members. Then, the member/employee can individually negotiate a separate contract with the public employer pertaining to all non-wage related terms of employment. The two contracts then work together simultaneously, in unison, and not contrary and contradictory to one another, as you seem to mistakenly believe.

Stop engaging in unfounded presumptions/assumptions/conjecture/speculation/etc, as it makes the conversation very difficult to follow and comprehend.

Again, please show how Act 10 prevents union employees from being able to individually negotiate with the public employer on all non-wage related terms of employment. Or, don't waste your time trying, as Act 10 does not do this. Don't you think if it did, that Colas would have expressly quoted and cited to such statutory language in his decision?

JRH –

The question of whether OBAMACARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL is stare decisis; even as a pragmatic issue – your alleged OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS of it being UNCONSTITUTIONAL aside – it really is OVER… [The Supreme Court is highly unlikely to ACCEPT any challenge, pro-se or otherwise to the OBAMACARE CASE, in whole or in part…]

Now, IF you want to increase your losing PROGNOSTICATIONS regarding how various courts will decide matters, that is totally up to you… I’m just totally amused that you just don’t understand the meaning of the word: “NO!”

‘In fact, Hoffa is thinking about filing a pro-se action in the federal court when the IRS attempts to enforce the penalty/tax/mandate on him, premised on the grounds that Hoffa has previously cited.’

You just go for it… I will, good naturally, laugh, laugh, and laugh…

@John Wilson -

You really shouldn't use words that you don't understand. Hoffa's challenge to Obamacare would not fall under the doctrine of stare decisis, as the issues raised by Hoffa were not litigated as a part of the prior lawsuit, nor did the Court address them in its decision.

Whether or not the S. Court would take up the case is hard to say, but if Hoffa or any of the other citizen suits that are sure to be filed across the country, were to prove successful at the Circuit Court of Appeals, I'm quite confident that the S. Court would almost definitely hear the Obama administration's appeal, assuming that Obama survives re-election, which Hoffa sincerely hopes he does not!

@JRH:

"You're not making any sense. First off, Act 10 did nothing to effect the statutory language that you're now relying upon. Second, why would the individual contracts pertaining to non-wage issues need to be amended merely because of the existence of a subsequently negotiated union CB contract pertaining to the sole issue of wages?"

Such contracts are obliged by that statute I quoted to contain provisions allowing them to be amended by an agreement in which the employee has no negotiating representation whatsoever beyond the base wages/CPI issue. Do you dispute this?

JRH –

As mentioned earlier, the OBAMACARE Supreme Court case is OVER, DONE, COOKED, both in whole and in part… they will not revisited it again, not even with all the pleadings, boisterousness and insistence of Hoffa. [They kicked the feces out of each other in arriving at the decision; they endured countless scurrilous attacks from Republicans and mountains of extremely bad press for months, and they are going to re-open OBAMACARE for YOU and some esoteric, newly created, non-existent issue that you might create… YES, I can see it now!]

The issue of stare decisis – a precedent setting law – sort of closes that possibility.

Further, “mandate”, “penalty” and “tax” were ALL dealt with in this decision – and, the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, decided that it was a “legal tax” that even Hoffa had to pay…

You simply do not have a legal case nor can you invent one…

Now, again, IF you want to continue to play Don Quixote and attack every windmill you see, fine… Just do not pretend that you have some novel judicial theory or invisible statute – and only you know where they are – to compel the Supreme Court to hear your pleading. [In 2014, you will be happy to get with the program – hopefully, you will understand OBAMACARE by then – or pay the tax for being foolish…]

Hope all you want... it is just another loss in the long list of Hoffa losses...

@Geoff Tolley -

"Such contracts are obliged by that statute I quoted to contain provisions allowing them to be amended by an agreement in which the employee has no negotiating representation whatsoever beyond the base wages/CPI issue. Do you dispute this?"

Indeed, Hoffa is disputing your point, because again, you're not considering the statutory scheme as a whole. Why would anyone need to amend an individually effectuated contract between employee and employer, relating solely to all non-wage terms of employment, merely because the union contract, that solely pertains to the issue of wages, is effectuated, irregardless of when each contract is effected? Because of Act 10, the terms of the union negotiated CB contract cannot impact, contradict, change, or alter the terms of the individually negotiated contracts dealing solely with non-wage related terms of employment, as the Act expressly limits the union's power to contract solely on the issue of wages for their represented bargaining unit members, as you've previously correctly confirmed. The word 'amend' is defined as to "modify formally." But you wouldn't need to modify the individual contracts because they only deal with terms that the union is no longer allowed to collectively bargain over. The CB contract and the individually negotiated contracts with employees supplement each other, as opposed to contradict each other.

Hypo 1: I'm a Madison school teacher and a voluntary member of the teacher's union. My employment with the district will consist of two contracts. The first contract is negotiated by my union over the issue of wages. The second contract is individually negotiated between the school district and myself over all other non-wage terms of employment. Together, the two contracts will define the obligations between myself and the school district. My voice on all terms of my employment is fully preserved.

Hypo 2: I'm a Madison school teacher, but I chose not to join the union. My employment with the district will consist of one contract, individually negotiated between the school district and myself, over all terms of employment, including wages. My voice on all terms of my employment is fully preserved.

This is how Act 10 works!

Honestly, is this that difficult to understand? Why do you believe that the two contracts in the unionized hypo would contradict each other when you've already displayed your awareness to how Act 10 limits the power of what the union can contract for on behalf of its members?

Again, if you believe that Hoffa is wrong, then please cite where Act 10 prohibits unionized employees from individually contracting with public employers all non-wage terms of employment, simply because of their choice to be a member of the union? You can't because such statutory language doesn't exist!

You and Colas are WRONG!!!

@John Wilson -

Could you please cite in Roberts' opinion wherein he addressed Article I Section 9 of the Constitution, as I can't find such a reference anywhere in his or in any other opinion issued by the justices comprising the majority opinion of the Court.

Thanks!

@JRH:

In your hypothetical #1, there is no contract 2. §111.70(3)(b)3 (http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/111/IV/70/3/b/3) "It is a prohibited practice for a municipal employee, individually or in concert with others: [...] 3. To refuse to bargain collectively with the duly authorized officer or agent of a municipal employer, provided it is the recognized or certified exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit. Such refusal to bargain shall include, but not be limited to, the refusal to execute a collective bargaining agreement previously agreed upon."

It is illegal for municipal employees who are represented by a union to abide by anything other than the collective bargaining agreement; and other than base-wage-increases-up-to-CPI, that agreement can contain terms that the municipality unilaterally puts in about hours or working conditions or benefits because there is no statute that requires otherwise.

Even if I am mistaken in that, it remains that the union-represented have no means whatsoever of negotiating an increase in the sum of base wages greater than the CPI (which you somehow glazed over). Those who are not union represented do. ergo, municipal employees cannot exercise their constitutional rights of association (in this case, with a legal union of others) unless they encumber themselves with that limitation.

JRH –

As you may know, Article I Section 9 of the Constitution was modified by the 16th Amendment. [Establishes the powers & limitations on the Congress]

“The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause.” [P-21]

“Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax.” [P-21]

Robert's largely used the second argument to find the PPACA CONSTITUTIONAL… and the "Article" is expressly and obliquely referred to throughout the 193 page document.

Lawyer’s would never write an opinion that succinctly states, “Article I Section 9 of the Constitution as modified by the 16th Amendment, meets all qualifications to satisfy the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the PPACA.”

These folks write in books, not sentences!

Finally, you may read the full decision by going to the attached link; copying multiple paragraphs and pages of text, which reference past pages of paragraphs and pages of text is not very elegant, a frugal use of my time nor fruitful for this discussion.

[YOU LOST… DEAL WITH IT!]

No more Red Herrings… please; I am NOT your law clerk…

National Federation of Independent Business - Supreme Court of ...
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

@Geoff Tolley -

Why would a contract contain terms that are expressly prohibited from being a part of the collective bargaining agreement? Again, you've already displayed that you understand that the union is limited to collectively bargain solely over the term of "base-wage-increases-up-to-CPI."

Thus, how could the union sign an agreement on behalf of its members that contained terms other than what the union is actually able to legally collectively bargain for? The union would not be able to legally assent to the non-conforming terms on behalf of their members, thus those parts of the CB agreement dealing with non-wage issues, that are slipped in by the public employer, would be struck down and deemed null and void pursuant to state contract law.

I now see where you're coming from though, however, when you read the statutory scheme together as a whole, as it must be consider by the Court upon review, and apply the definitions of words as the statutory scheme directs, then it should work as Hoffa has described in his hypos, as there is no express prohibition against union employees from negotiating those terms that are expressly prohibited from being a part of the CB agreement on an individual basis with the public employer.

The intent of the statutory sections you cite and rely upon are clearly intended to keep the individual member from negotiating an agreement with the public employer that would act to contradict terms that would be contained within the CB agreement. Clearly, that is not the situation presented by Hoffa's hypos due to the limitations expressly placed upon the CB agreement.

"Even if I am mistaken in that, it remains that the union-represented have no means whatsoever of negotiating an increase in the sum of base wages greater than the CPI (which you somehow glazed over). Those who are not union represented do. ergo, municipal employees cannot exercise their constitutional rights of association (in this case, with a legal union of others) unless they encumber themselves with that limitation."

This is your strongest argument - and Hoffa actually agrees with you on this point. The limit on wage increases that can be negotiated by the union is definitely unconstitutional IF the supporting foundation (legal support) of Colas' decision is wholly correct. Hoffa has some doubts about this, as Colas actually provided very little in the way of direct and on point precedent as support for his 'legal' position, and Hoffa hasn't had the time or the will to independently research the legal issues raised.

The way he handled the claims pertaining to the City of Milwaukee, refusing to make a rational/logical nexus pertaining to protecting public property, supports such doubt.

@JRH, I heard Van Hollen this morning and he said that Colas needs to clarify whether this decision applies to the whole state or only the ones involved in the legal challenge. There are also some issues that Colas needs to clarify but offhand I don't remember what they were. And so far he hasn't done this.

@John Wilson -

Hoffa stands corrected - the Court did find that the Obamacare tax/penalty/mandate was indeed a constitutionally lawful tax and reconciled this against Article I section 9's prohibition against non-proportional direct taxation. Although, the Court's logic on such reconciliation is clearly faulty, contradicting earlier points made by the majority opinion. The decision is an attack upon our Constitution and a fundamental re-writing of the principles espoused within it! All Americans should be fearful of the Obamacare decision!

JRH -

CONGRATS on finding what I have been telling you for days now...

Apology accepted... I'm sorry you don't like the SC and think them "activist" when they gore your favorite Ox, but love them as Constitutional Scholars when they rule for your Ox...

Now you will have time for your other windmills.

Good Luck!

And here is a summary from above:

In Walker's Wisconsin, the former party of law and order has devolved into the party of bad law and disorder.

* A judge ruled that the wolf hunt ordered by the legislature after it disregarded scientific and expert advice conflicted with state animal cruelty laws by allowing hunters to use dogs in the chase - - all other states with wolf hunts ban the practice - - thus throwing the entire Wisconsin hunt into doubt on the eve of its October beginning.

What kind of legislating is that?

Speaking of which...

* The Walkerites' signature move, the union-rights stripping Act 10, was struck down Friday as unconstitutional for teachers and local government workers' rights.

* Portions of the law restricting public employee union organizing were already declared illegal in March by a Federal judge.

* A portion of the secretive legislative redistricting scheme Walker, legislative leaders and their taxpayer-paid attorneys drew up was also declared illegal, with a federal judge strongly condemning the process and even fining the lawyers for withholding documents he'd ordered released.

Wrong.

Please show the "vow of poverty", that you reference in, ANY government sector employee contracts. The average compensation for an MPS teacher is over $100,000, is that what you rich bastards consider poverty.

Expertise? LOL
Dave, I am in charge of a bunch of union employees. And let me tell you, when act 10 passed, the only ones whining about it were the crappiest employees. The union lowers the bar to the lowest denominator. Why should good employees try when the idiot next to them makes the same wage?

What does that tell you?

oak creek resident –

Judging from your plethora of juvenile name-calling and bar talk posts, I find it highly unlikely that anyone would put you in charge of a toilet, much less 10 union employees.

Then again, if this is in Oak Creek, I would not be at all surprised.

Finally, a team, their objectives, cohesiveness and achievements are a direct result of their leader and manager; IF you have 10 union people working with you and you are getting nowhere. look to yourself: YOU ARE THE FAILURE...

The average household income is $200,000 according to Mitt Romney. At $100,000, teachers are well below that.

@John Wilson,

Spot on!!!

morn, do you have an UNBIASED source? Uppity Wisconsin is as biased as the Huffington Post.

Here's a link to Scott Walker's page on Politifact with raw data. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/scott-walker/

Sandra Fluke uses birth control.

Lynn Vander Meer -

John Wilson also uses birth control... now the RED COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PARTY can attempt to have me arrested or executed for using such a vile birth control device and maybe they can add a few life sentences to my penalty for having "pleasure sex..."

I believe John Wilson is absolutely correct if he stated "In today’s America if Slavery was put to a popular vote, it would pass". This would most likely happen in many of the Red States! And if you believe otherwise then you haven't been to States such as Georgia or Alabama...

dee50 –

I really do not think you have to go as far as Georgia or Alabama to ascertain the “truthiness” of my quote. [Look at Racine, Milwaukee] You hear it on the Patch in various posts, you have the Birthers all over the place and you find it all over, “right in your face” in one of the major Tighty Whitey political parties…

The election of Obama did not begin any “Post-Racial” period; it simply, for the most part, drove the bigots, the prejudiced and the racial haters underground, where they could use “code words” like birth certificates, welfare, food stamps and college grades to impugn both the integrity and legitimacy of having a tanned man as our president.

Yes, superficially, and in very PC environments we have come a long way… beyond that… RAGE!

Dee & John Wilson, thank you SO much for posting your ignorance.

CentralScrutinizer -

A disjointed, jumble of dissembling words from the very bowels of the earth comes bubbling forth to confirm and render the ultimate credence to my previous post… “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

Greg –

All money in the USA is printed (Created) by the government, dispersed and returned to the government – in some cases at a very low percentage – in the form of taxes.

IF our government did not print any money, Henry Ford would not have had any money to double the wages of his employees with in 1914, and Willard would not have had his father’s money to start Bain and destroy companies, leaving, again, the American taxpayer to pick up the losses in pension plans he destroyed and unemployment compensation paid to former employees…

I know that there are some folks who believe in a “Money Tree”, presumably, in their back yard; however, that is sort of like believing by putting, IN GOD WE TRUST on our money, somehow a GOD will make sure it is trustworthy and actually worth something…

John Wilson, the poorly educated miscreant that he has become, is confused by the difference between the manufacture of the current fiat currency with the value of labor that the fiat currency represents. In Mr Wilson's warped, and woefully ignorant view of the world, the government gives us all money, no one earns it based upon skill or value of our labor. Best to ignore this cretin, he doesnt understand money.

I have been reading with great amusement the rantings of one John Wilson.
for example:

"All money in the USA is printed (Created) by the government, dispersed and returned to the government – in some cases at a very low percentage – in the form of taxes."
While it contains a grain of truth, I doubt he understands what he is talking about. Gee John, let's just put twice as much printed money into circulation. Then we can double everyone's wages. Neat huh? Oh wait the price of everything doubles instantly. Oh well, it's time for John to read an economics book or two,

Ed Larsen –

While your lack of basic economics and monetary policy, leaving aside the FED for now, is both absolutely startling and deeply saddening, the fact remains that what you refer to “it contains a grain of salt” is, in fact, an entire salt block.

IF we were to put twice as much printed money into circulation – your completely inane suggestion – you could look for an almost immediate equal drop in the VALUE of the dollar - world wide - and its purchasing power. This would then apply to everything in our entire economy, automobiles would cost twice as much, as would every commodity, and, a concurrent doubling of wages would only allow for partial parity with the rise in all commodity prices, for a wide variety of reasons.

Unfortunately, when you attempt to address the issues of economics/monetary policy/money… you are simply clueless. Additionally, I suspect that this entire blog is simply nothing more for you than a place where you can be outrageously snarky, without having any accountability...

Frankly, I have rarely seen a less thoughtful, abhorrently analyzed suggestion put forward, since GWB said, “Bring ‘em on!”

John Wilson, Hello? That's exactly what I said with no insults and less verbosity. Tell me, do you ever think with that pea brain?

H.E. Pennypacker –

The government does NOT give you money; it merely prints (creates) it, a very clear distinction from what you seem to believe...

As long as you profess to own a company – think you can legally terminate any employee for the mere mention of starting a union – and make your own counterfeit money in the basement, not realizing that ALL money is made by the FED, I would NOT get real quick on the trigger with your HS verbiage, miscreant, fiat currency, ignorant, cretin, etc.

Truth is, YOU simply do not have an argument, so you resort to name-calling!

You probably attempt to pay your bills with bitcoin or bitcoin plus…

All good points, Ann. Factual and not a bit of name calling in sight.

Oh my goodness, how has humanity progressed without the sacred Unions!!! What a bunch of garbage, union goons/stooges/thugs are not needed, I go out of my way to ensure that none of my money goes to unions and I certainly will fire the first employee who brings up unionization in the workplace.

Ann Wright –

It does go far deeper and is much more nefarious than that for these Cro-Magnons who will stop at nothing short of gaining COMPLETE CONTROL.

The path to CONTROL is to appoint judges, throughout the entire judiciary that share their beliefs – and if they don’t, they can be bought to rule in their favor.

Get Republican Governors elected in the states, along with a Republican Senate and Assembly, so they can CONTROL the legislation that ensues.

Nationally, to get a Republican President elected – as Grover Norquist said, “we only need a hand that will sign the legislation we put in front of him.”

Down-ticket, get Republicans elected to both houses of congress so we can control the House, the Senate, and, ultimately, the “hand” in the White House.

The next president – certainly the one in 2016 – is going to be replacing several Supreme Court Judges… significant potential consequences here…

However, in order to get to these stages you have to disenfranchise a lot of voters; you have to give the – WE THE PEOPLE – a sense of impending doom… then you have to give them a bogeyman, someone to BLAME for all their slings and woes of outrageous fortune. Finally, you have to present these folks with a SAVIOR, JOB CREATOR, a LEADER who will not only bring them rivers of $$$, security, and unenduring pleasure, indefinitely prolonged… but it must be a WHITE LEADER…

That’s the plan; let’s see if WE THE PEOPLE will allow it...

Henry Ford did not work for the government and he was not paying his employees with tax dollars.

not factual at all. ford was 100 % antiunion. had his shop been unionized there would be no model t and no ford motors, you fail.

Greg -

While Henry Ford did not work for the government, all the money that the government and you have is from TAX MONEY. They print it, send it to the banks, the banks send it out in the form of loans, CEO pay, bonuses, wages, etc.

Therefore, all the money that Henry Ford paid his workers was derived from taxes or tax money if you will. The money in your bank or pocket is money that someone paid to the government in the form of taxes... you may proudly say you earned it, and you probably did, however, it is still tax money paid to the government by WE THE PEOPLE...

Robert -

Although I sincerely applaud your efforts to reduce the name calling, and vulgarity to make this more of a family friendly blog, where ideas and opinions, sometimes bolstered by facts, can flourish.

Sometimes it is appropriate to take literary license so that the perpetuators of ignorance, hate, prejudice and bigotry can understand, at the emotional level, what it feels like to be constantly persecuted by shear filth… Obviously, by some of the responses I’ve received, turn-about has very clearly made my point for me…

Finally, should we be expecting, sometime in the near future, actual grades on our posts from Robert?

"all the money that the government and you have is from TAX MONEY" this is the idiocy and blissful ignorance that makes up the left. Go back to school John, and please sue for educational malpractice whoever raised you, they failed obviously.

H.E. Pennypacker –

You may not realize this, but unions, in one form or another, have been around since the very beginning of the Republic. Put another way, unions are as American as the founding fathers and the Constitution.

You may not like unions very much and that is your right. Now, if you don’t want to support any unions – and will fire anyone who says they want a union in your company – I would encourage you to cease buying anything that has oil or oil based products in it…

You may want to start with gasoline… unions are an integral part in the total process of bringing you that old Texas Gold to your gas tank.

Then, of course, you would want to stay away from automobiles, motor bikes – Harleys – and bicycles, even for your children, should you have any.

You should then avoid any plastics, medical devices and pharmaceuticals.

As a final area you must avoid would be the entire arena of cosmetics, especially hand creams and lip softeners/creams.

Good luck with your journey in going out of your way to avoid anything union or made by unions… you are indeed a shining example to all Americans…

Mr Wilson, I could give a damn about whether this is a "family friendly blog.". My point is, and has always been, that those on whichever side who choose to rely on name calling and similar incivility do damage to their respective positions. The use of such tactics strongly suggests that the person using them believes himself or herself that they do not have either the facts or the brainpower to support their positions with persuasive argument and instead must resort to intimidation. That, of course, does nothing to persuade those who might seek to gain some actual understanding from the comments and does nothing to persuade the opposing side to rethink their position. Instead, it merely reinforces the rightwing myth that anyone supporting the rights of working people is a "union thug," and the left wing myth that all conservatives are mindless idiots blindly repeating whatever BS the Koch Brothers churn out.

Robert -

Thank you for your reply; I do understand your position...

Sometimes you have to hit a person in the head with a 10# sledgehammer, just to get their attention, and then you may proceed with the discussion.

Truthfully, and somewhat ironically, I have NOT had a discussion with a SINGLE PERSON on this blog who was/is interested in reevaluating their position, learning something new or honestly attempting to empathize with anyone else's position on a subject.

Truthfully, I am starting to believe that the Patch is populated by a bunch of old school chums, who now may work together for the same company or political party, and each and every one of these folks – sometimes using different screen names – are very steeped in ideology, and further, are only interested in supporting each other’s position and forwarding their own ideology…

I could be wrong…

H.E. Pennypacker -

Sorry, I forgot about your counterfiet $$$, all printed in the basement of your non-union company... The rest of the people in America get their $$$ from the FED, in other words: THE GOVERNMENT!

About that school thing... I'd give it some real careful thought B/4 they come with the butterfly net or the IRS/Treasury looks at what you are doing in your basement...

John Wilson
1:56 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012

Greg -

While Henry Ford did not work for the government, all the money that the government and you have is from TAX MONEY. They print it, send it to the banks, the banks send it out in the form of loans, CEO pay, bonuses, wages, etc.

Therefore, all the money that Henry Ford paid his workers was derived from taxes or tax money if you will. The money in your bank or pocket is money that someone paid to the government in the form of taxes... you may proudly say you earned it, and you probably did, however, it is still tax money paid to the government by WE THE PEOPLE...

So everything that the "ultra wealthy", the "1%" like Romney, spends is TAX MONEY?

Actually Ann, it WAS early industrialist such as Henry Ford that VOLUNTARILY gave us the 40 hour/5 day work week. After years of losing good employees and productivity rates lower than expected, he realized human beings could only work so hard for so long. 40 hours seemed to be the peak, so that's where he settled. Of course, being a businessman, he adjusted the pay proportionately.

The Kellogg company dabbled in the 30 hour work week for years. They found that they could hire 25% more workers, but workers were taking home 25% less pay per week. Despite that, Kellogg employees liked it since they had more free time.

Unions were a huge benefit 100 years ago, and they haven't changed much since then. By failing to evolve with the changing times, they have made their purpose for existence obsolete.

Meanwhile....While you argue, Tammy slips ahead;)

Baldwin poll has her up on Thompson in Senate race http://elections.wispolitics.com/2012/09/baldwin-poll-has-her-up-on-thompson-in.html … #wipolitics #wiunion

"Thirty-four percent of those surveyed described themselves as Democrats, while 28 percent said they were Republicans" The only polls your kind wins is when Democrats are overpolled........Walker Win all over again.

Don't you think someone who is running for US Senator should have had the girls tied up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7YDaXqyL-Y

@mau -- She wasn't running for Senate in August of 2010 or whenever that video was shot.

Is this the same video that someone in the Thompson campaign emailed a link to and the Baldwin campaign got it's undies (or lack thereof, apparently) in a bundle about?

From Wikipedia: "Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers."

Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford's policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy."

It wasn't until 1941 that the Ford Motor Company was unionized.

Keep the girls tied up Tammy.

You are referring us to polls done by the DailyKOS? That's hilarious. I have a great ponzi scheme for you to invest in.

Remember when this lunatic 'morninmist' thought Walker was going to lose!!! Good Good times.

I am not a bigot, don't accuse me of being a bigot and I could care less that TT would lower himself to apologizing. I made no mention of the event she was dancing at and making a spectacle of herself at. She is a professional politician and should act that way. It wasn't that long ago that there was a blog right here on the Patch about the way that Republican women dress. Saying how unprofessional Republican women dress compared to how professional Republican men dress. She should have at least had enough self respect to tie the girls and act professionally. She was well aware that she was presenting herself at a public event at a public place.

I'm guessing by your comments that this shouldn't be an issue but a drunk Republican or a Republican who misspeaks is fair game.

@mau -- After watching the video I now understand what you meant by 'tie the girls', but I don't think you quite understand how other people might have interpreted your words.

@mau

There is an old saying about giving a person a rope long enough and they will hang themselves. Your spin post just did that.

@Randy, everybody I know is aware of what "the girls" are. And I am sure the majority of women in the country do. And like you did end up doing, if anyone watched the video it was quite obvious. I probably should have just said she should have been wearing a bra as her breasts were jiggling and jumping.

Considering she was on stage with a group of other women, I thought you were making reference to BDSM.

Randy, you've never heard a woman refer to her boobs as "the girls"?

Only the kind of women who think that's cute. Most people grow out of the stage of cute nicknames for their genitalia and secondary sex characteristics once they're past their teens.

Please, let's not have any videos of Tommy dancing, because I think a lot more would bounce than just his chest.

I see. Well, apparently then I'm not yet old enough to have "progressed" to the stage where the phrase would register as a reference to BDSM. When can I expect that to kick in?

It was the phrase 'tied up'. And it will happen after you've read too much Anne Rice. 'Nuff said.

I think I'm safe then.

Oh jeez Randy, my brain just locked up thinking about Tommy dancing :( And my mind didn't even register what you thought I meant.

It's a common term and mostly it's used in jest not as an actual name.

"government employees (according to FDR) should not be in union"

FDR: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service" (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445) is what this is taken from, without context. To provide it, the letter goes on to say:

"Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

FDR just didn't think that public employees should strike.

He concludes the same letter "I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful." The NFFE was then and remains to this day a public union. I think that speaks for itself.

@John Feia,

One step at a time. We got to where we are incrementally and that is how we will get back to a sane public employee negotiating policy.

Boffa -

"The biggest farce about this whole thing is that..." Boffa is commenting on a LEGAL ARGUMENT...

Quick, grab your pitchforks, Bibles, guns and let’s all meet at the Road Kill Rest, and take Boffa to a BASIC LEGAL COURSE…

Perhaps we may incite him enough to obtain some BASIC LEGAL KNOWLEDGE…
KEY:

"Defendants have shown they are likely to succeed on appeal,

[because the Supreme Court has held that an appeal of a ruling that a statute is unconstitutional must always be found likely to succeed, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION of the STRENGTH of the ARGUMENTS on CONSTITUTIONAL or of the DECISION BEING APPEALED."]

In other words, the Supreme Court has always held that an appeal of a ruling that a statute is unconstitutional MUST BE FOUND LIKELY TO SUCCEED, no matter how strong, good and legally sufficient that argument is.

Now that’s a really profound legal standard!

Let's all be outraged, AT THE SUPREME COURT!

Boffa –

You will notice that Boffa ONLY CITES a part of the paragraph that contains the quote – duplicitous much? And, he does NOT cite the other (3) reasons!

“Defendants have shown they are likely to succeed on appeal, because the Supreme Court has held that an appeal of a ruling that a statute is unconstitutional must always be found likely to succeed, without consideration of the strength of the argument on constitutionality or of the decision being appealed. However, likelihood of success is only one of the four factors and it is weighed with the other three. Defendants have failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm if the stay
is not granted and that a stay will not harm other interested parties or the public interest, the other three factors. Thus, the court denies the motion
for the reasons detailed below.”

How Lyin’ Ryan [Boffa] of you to mislead, lie and dissemble… typical Republican trash!

@Lyin' John Wilson -

You'll notice that the other three reasons you cite pertain solely to the granting of a stay, and not the likelihood of the state's success upon appeal.

When the Appellate and/or Supreme Court overturn Colas' decision, will you apologize to Hoffa?

Boffa –

You are the most duplicitous person on this blog and you are WRONG!

ALL (4) are elements of the STAY!

I have NEVER BEEN WRONG when I have CORRECTED YOU AND YOUR DUPLICITY… and I NEVER WILL BE!

You should apologize to ALL of SE WI and the PATCH; YOU ARE SO FAR BELOW HUMAN GARBAGE!

Comrade John is just upset with Hoffa because he is right more often than Comrade John.

285% more right.

The Anti-Alinsky -

YOU and LOGIC shall never meet...

Enough garbage, Wilson. Just to remind fellow Patchers what one is dealing with when engaging John Wilson, what follows are some his recent quotes:

"Mormon cult"
"An “unborn child” is totally disingenuous and an obvious attempt to bestow attributes – typical emotional argument – upon a biological organism that they do not have. Your “unborn child” is, in fact, a fetus"
"As I see it, an ovum/fetus has no RIGHT TO LIFE"
"the RED, COMMUNIST MOAMMAR WALKER PARTY "
"the RED, COMMUNIST REPUBLICAN PARTY"
"In today’s America if Slavery was put to a popular vote, it would pass"

This individual tries hard to hide his beliefs, but as one can see by his above slip-ups when trying to appear rational, John Wilson's true character has some serious issues that need help . Do not engage him. Just let him be happy in his own fantasy (albeit warped) world.

Bewildered,
Half the fun is proving Johnny wrong. The other half is as you pointed out, seeing him shoot himself in the foot. Johnny's posts are the written equivalent of watching Jack-Ass.

Well it outrages you which is encouraging.

Wilson, I think you deserve a vacation. Maybe Atlantic city would be good for you?
No worries for you about Sandy, your head is so full of air you can't drown.

Another intelligent comment. Nice ...

Boffa -

Boffa is very fond of quoting certain sentences, wholly taken out of context; to deceive you into believing that his faux lawyering is somehow not only exemplary, but also far exceeds that of our nations Supreme Court. It is the duplicitous nature of Boffa and his Patch sycophants to lie, mislead, name-call, and distort as much as possible; it comes with the Republican mental/moral disorder termed: Wishful Thinking. It comes from the same manure pile that Willard eats from, where every day is an opportunity for another 180 degree switch of position or rationale.

THE MISSING PART OF BOFFA'S QUOTE:

"However, likelihood of success is only ONE of the FOUR factors and it is weighed with the other THREE. Defendants have failed to show that they will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted and that a stay will not harm other
interested parties or the public interest, the other three factors. Thus, the court denies the motion for the reasons detailed below.”

I have previously prove Boffa wrong on the Supreme Court’s ruling on ACA, J.B. Van Hollen getting a STAY and Red States, where conservatives and religious folks consume more pornography than their blue or purple state counterparts.

Rest assured my favorite piñata will be monitored for hs Wishful Thinking excesses and duplicity; his derriere-sniffing minions, will, of course, attempt to defend Boffa, because they are merely clones…

Wow, John, just Wow! Love Your last paragraph: "Rest assured my favorite ....."
Well though out and insightful.

P.S. this guy really needs help. Or even scarier (after all it is Halloween), Wilson may actually believe his own drivel

@John Wilson Are you off of your medication again? How you got out of your strait jacket I'll never know.

So it is the federal government's spending on public employee unions that is at issue here? I thought this was a State issue.

John F., perhaps you have forgotten how the states and the public employee unions were bailed out with federal tax dollars. Facts are stubborn things john.

If you are referring to Illinois request for federal funds with their pension problems did you recall that the funding was in the form of a loan? Regardless, the topic of this post as the constitutionality of the law force fed through the system by our Governor. The "fact" is that your attempt to introduce residual topics to the conversation are unrelated and inconsequental.