There is a hearing today before Judge Maryann Sumi in Wisconsin. The hearing was supposed to be a continuation of the testimony as to whether the budget bill had been published.
As detailed by JSOnline, at the end of the hearing Tuesday, Judge Sumi on the record declined to rule on the issue of publication, stating as follows:
“That is yet to be determined,” she said Tuesday. “I hesitate to do that at this point because testimony is not closed and argument is not closed.”
And in fact, Judge Sumi struck from the form of Order on Tuesday a paragraph declaring that the budget bill had not become law.
Nonetheless, as JSOnline notes, yesterday Judge Sumi issued an order finding the bill had not become law despite hearing no more of the testimony and argument she said was needed.
No testimony has been taken since Sumi said that, and Sumi’s order gave no explanation of why she had decided to rule now.
The Order Judge Sumi entered yesterday did not in any way explain either this contradiction or the legal and factual reasoning behind the ruling as to publication.
Not good.
The hearings continue this morning.
Updates: I will not be able to follow the hearings this morning, but I recomment the twitter feed of Jessica Arp, a local news reporter who is in the courtroom.
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
or did you instead mean to say that you are usually a champion of judicial oversight, but Sumi might have changed your mind?
Seems to me the comment stands very well as written.
Or are you saying that you approve of the way Marilyn Sumi has illegally attempted to hijack Wisconsin state government?
Excellent post Tochilus. I wish someone could have explained this to Rachel Maddow earlier this week as she attacked the Wisconsin Senate on her program for apparently violating the TRO by ordering the LRB to publish the law. For some reason I doubt that Rachel Maddow has even read the TRO.
@trochilus: Thanks for that excellent post. Question. Regardless of the constitutionality of Judge Sumi's actions, it seems to me and many others that this is an effort to keep this issue tied up in court. Is there any avenue that might prevent this? (If this sounds like a dumb question, it's because I am not an attorney).
@Darth Venomous I think it should be very clear from a number of my comments, on this and prior threads, what I think of the way Judge Maryann Sumi is dealing with this issue.
I was just confused about the logic of the first comment posted here.
It said, and I quote:
'I'm not usually a champion of judicial oversight, but Sumi might have changed my mind."
Logically, that suggested to me that, contrary to his prior view, @conservative generation was now becoming a fan of judicial oversight as a result of observing the actions of Judge Sumi!
I didn't think he really meant that, hence my question.
@Pasadena Phil I agree that it is not only an effort to keep it tied up in court, but it also gives at least an appearance of a possible concomitant effort on the part of the judge to engage in a political effort to try to force the Walker Administration to redo the legislation, in hopes that in the wake of the ongoing "recall" efforts and intense media pressure, a sufficient number of GOP members will fold and not go along. In my opinion, she is really straddling the line.
I don't live in Wisconsin, and I am certainly not qualified to address any legal issue in that state, other than just as an observer and commenter from a good long distance away. I wouldn't even pretend to offer any party any advice.
But, other than awaiting what clearly (and quite disturbingly) appears to be a preordained outcome by Judge Sumi, I did notice, in looking at the Wisconsin Statutes, that there is an "extraordinary remedy" available for consideration by parties . . . a "Writ of Prohibition", by which a party or parties may actually seek to compel a court to "desist and refrain" from further proceedings, including the ability to seek to obtain a permanent restraint. I'm just kind of wondering out loud if anyone has taken a look at it?
On the face of it, however, I'd add that it looks to be very difficult to meet the threshold test for seeking such a remedy.
Again, I’m just an observer here; not in any way offering any advice to them, nor could I.
I was just confused about the logic of the first comment posted here.
(nods) I could be the one in error here (wouldn't be the first time, lemme tell ya). Admittedly, the Prof's blog isn't an everyday read for me (available time being at a premium 'n all); hence, sometimes the kmans, barfos, nishners, etc, can be difficult to spot.
Looks like I dropped the ball on this one. Apologies.
Leave a Comment