What's the point of passing a law that requires public entities to give a defined period of advance notice of a public meeting -- but exempts the entity that makes the law? That's what four members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yesterday is legal and constitutional.
Wisconsin's open meeting law requires 24-hour notice. The Republican-dominated state Assembly gave less than two hours notice earlier this year when it scheduled a vote on a highly controversial and divisive bill to ban public-employee collective bargaining rights for everything including pay increases that exceed the rate of inflation.
The four-member Supreme Court majority posited that a "lower court judge who voided the law on grounds that lawmakers violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law while passing it 'invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers.'"
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57010.html#ixzz1PLerN0lf)
So does that mean the Legislature can create any law it wants, but doesn't have to abide by it?
If the third branch of government has no say in how the second branch of government conducts the People's business, haven't the four-member majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in their ruling, effectively negated the balance of power that forms the foundation of democracy in this country?
In the four-member majority's version of the rule of law, what's to prevent legislative tyranny in Wisconsin? Certainly not the Legislature's tyrannical partner, Scott Walker
In this case giving one party complete control of our government is a terrible mistake. At the very least the recalls should give the Senate back to the Dems, and perhaps a third-party should replace Walker.
ReplyDelete