"That is a non-justiciable political controversy."
- - - -

I don't think this is correct.

The Wisc legislature chose to write and pass a statute that contains the open-meeting requirements for the various steps involved in passing legislation. By doing so, they have properly given the courts specific guidance in what is allowable and what is not allowable. Using the legislature's criteria as set out in the statute, the courts now have the power to review discrete situations and determine if the process was handled in compliance with that statute.

Personally, I think the court will eventually rule that the notice requirement was either adequately met, or was somehow waived. The preliminary injunction just holds things in place until all of the parties can present their arguments, and their facts, to the court for a determination.

In keeping score, I've noticed this is the third occasion this law has passed scrutiny, and been advanced by nonpartisan entities: the Senate clerk who agreed 24 hour "open meetings" notice didn't apply, the legislative entity who stripped out everything "fiscal" to avoid needing the Senate quorum, and now this Legislative Reference Bureau publishing it.

The bill's proponents could not have any hewed closer to rules and process. In huge contrast, the critics are fleeing the state, mobbing the Capitol, and pulling meritless TROs out of thin air. Instructive.

Awesome, I hope this stands. It's time for us to make public unions optional. My daughter's 4k teacher, which is a grade most districts do not even have, makes $110,000 a year with benefits included. My daughter goes to class, goes potty, the teacher reads them a story, then they usually draw a picture, or maybe count some things and put stickers on paper, then can read a book or make a puzzle on their own, then they have a snack, then they have play time, then they go home, and each class is a half day, and the teacher has 2 classes a day.

So for that, she makes $110,000 a year, AND she has an assistant. Don't get me wrong, she's a very nice lady, and she's a good teacher, but what she does each day requires very little skill. More patience than anything. To make $110,000 a year with benefits included in that figure, for what is essentially no more difficult than daycare, is absurd. No wonder Wisconsin is going broke.

In comparison, the 3 year old preschool she went to last year at the local Catholic school was MORE in depth schooling, in less time, and the teacher probably made $35,000 a year or less, and she was every bit as good as my daughter's 4k teacher. I think 35k is too little, and 110k is off the charts too high. I came to the 35k figure based on tuition and class size etc...

Certainly, it can't be a requirement that a newspaper publish the law for it to be a law. Otherwise, the newspaper could simply choose not to publish a law they didn't like (like they might have done here -- I'm curious who "cancelled" the publication).

A Law Prof at Marquette in Milwaukee has been closely blogging. He says....

--------The Secretary of State does have publication responsibilities. He is required to "[p]ublish in the official state newspaper within 10 days after the date of publication of an act a notice certifying the number of each act, the number of the bill from which it originated, the date of publication and the relating clause." I would think that Judge Sumi's order prevents him from doing that.

But is that necessary for the law to become effective? In a word, no. Sec. 991.11 provides that "[e]very act and every portion of an act enacted by the legislature over the governor's partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated under s. 35.095 (3) (b)." Indeed, the requirement to publish in the state newspaper is expressly required to happen ten days after the date of the publication. Any argument that "publication" means publishing in the state newspaper would seem, as far as I can tell, to be frivolous.------

So the legislative reference bureau is the publishing body and the newspaper posting is a subsequent informational act by the SOS -- an obsolete one in the year 2011 (BTW).

At a higher level, if one whacky judge can stop a law from even being published, why couldn't he/she stop every law that passed? Why have a legislature at all?

The MU professor aludes to the violation of the separation of powers....

----District Attorney Ozanne and Judge Sumi never had the authority to stop publication and their failure to read the law has only resulted in their own errors being negated. There is poetic justice in that. ----

"It's published; it's law" doesn't MAKE it a law. It's a law therefore you publish it. Or, perhaps this is easier to understand: if you don't publish it, then you don't have a law. If they want the courts to find it legal, violating a state statute seems a bad way to start.

This Indiana teacher is with you Gov. Walker and Wisconsin GOP. For years my "peers" have undermined themselves, their profession, and their communities by abdicating their authority to the unions and their bought and paid for political caretakers, the Democrat Party. I chose to be a teacher, enjoy what I do, and want to be compensated fairly based on my performance. Results matter, and this isn't little league. There are no trophies for showing up. If we want to be respected as professionals we must be held to professional standards, and the current structure of union negotiated public education fights this tooth and nail. Basing pay solely on your ability to not get fired certainly promotes the collection of union dues, but does nothing to improve teaching/learning in our public schools.