WorldWatcher
Gold Member
- Dec 28, 2010
- 12,880
- 4,902
The only one with anything even approaching an on-topic rebuttal is WorldWatcher, but the fact is that the Republicans emailed and posted that they were convening a SPECIAL SESSION to vote on this legislation so they not only followed the requirements, but went above them with the emails.
Please provide evidence of such e-mails and postings by "Republicans". If the e-mail and postings were by the Senate leadership they would be considered under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Rules of the Senate as a meeting under Regular Session which was scheduled for March 8th - March 10th (the Bill being passed on March 9th). And Senate Rule 93 would not have been in effect.
If the Senate had adjourced early (by March 8th) and if the e-mail and postings was sent by the Governor calling an adjourned Senate back into session to address a specific purpose, then it would have been a Special Session under the law and Senate Rule 93 would have been in effect.
We'll await your supporting evidence.
************************
Couple of things...
1. This is a "stay" not a ruling. At this point there has not been a full trial in court with each side presenting it's full case. That has yet to occur.
2. The GOP could introduce the following measures: (a) a bill to repeal the bill they just past [this renders the court case moot.], and (b) introduce a new bill doing the same thing but insuring that sufficient notice is provided. Since the GOP is in the majority, it should not be a problem to pass the newer bill.
3. From a Democrat perspective, in my personal opinion, they are trying to stall implementation of the law until the June/July time frame. They are working hard at getting the necessary signatures for the recall of Republicans and if I understand correctly - once the signatures are obtained the recall elections could happen this summer. I think thier intent is to stall the bill in the courts until they can see if they can unseat enough Republicans to change the majority party.
>>>>
Last edited: