• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin judge blocks Republicans’ lame-duck power grab

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,039
Reaction score
82,282
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wisconsin judge blocks Republicans’ lame-duck power grab

5c2bbddc61407.image.jpg

Former Wisconsin GOP Governor Scot Walker. Good riddance.

3/21/19
A Wisconsin judge on Thursday blocked several lightning-fast actions in December by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to limit the power of its incoming governor, Democrat Tony Evers, and preserve policies implemented by his predecessor, Scott Walker. The GOP has tried similar power-stripping efforts after losing statewide elections in North Carolina and Michigan. Out*going Michigan governor Rick Snyder vetoed some but not all of the bills passed in December. And in 2016, North Carolina’s outgoing Republican governor, Pat Mc*Crory, defeated by Democrat Roy Cooper, signed a number of lame-duck measures, some of which have been successfully challenged in court. In Wisconsin, the legislature acted in what is known as an “extraordinary session,” called with little notice. It lasted two days and one night and sparked heated protests. The measures sought to protect, among other things, Republican agenda items such as work requirements for Medicaid and food-stamp recipients, opposition to the Affordable Care Act and limits on early absentee voting in elections. A federal judge blocked the voting measure earlier. The three bills enacted during the sessions were extraordinary in breadth. Severe restrictions were imposed limiting the availability of Medicaid. Republicans pushed through 82 of Walker’s appointments to various state boards and commissions.

Dane County Judge Richard G. Niess invalidated the actions, including the appointments. He ruled that the extraordinary session violated the state’s constitution, which allows special sessions only when convened by the governor. Although Walker signed the bills, he did not call the session. In a statement posted Thursday to Twitter, Evers said: “The Legislature overplayed its hand by using an unlawful process to accumulate more power for itself and override the will of the people, despite the outcome of last November’s election.” Nothing in the decision or the lawsuit purports to go beyond the events of December, Jeffrey Mandell, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, told The Post. Republicans lost all statewide contests in the midterm elections but retained majorities in both houses of Wisconsin’s legislature. One of the GOP laws enacted in Wisconsin prevented the state from dropping out of a Texas-sponsored lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act. Immediately after Niess’s ruling, Attorney General Josh Kaul moved to withdraw the state’s involvement in the suit.

Republicans cannot legislate with honor, nor accept defeat with grace.

Related: Judge Restores Wisconsin Governor's Powers, Strikes Down GOP Laws
 
Republicans and their voters have no shame. Their candidates are cheating, rigging the system, and they don't care. And then they will have the nerve to say things about Democrats that are actually true for them. THere is no coming together with these scumbags. We need people to get out and vote, they are outnumbered, its just so many don't vote. Push these deplorables under their rocks for good. north Carolina did the same thing, changed rules when dems were going to get power so they didn't have power.

And right wingers will defend this, then have the nerve to claim they are the victims and that its unfair. Complete assholes
 
Wisconsin judge blocks Republicans’ lame-duck power grab

5c2bbddc61407.image.jpg

Former Wisconsin GOP Governor Scot Walker. Good riddance.



Republicans cannot legislate with honor, nor accept defeat with grace.

Related: Judge Restores Wisconsin Governor's Powers, Strikes Down GOP Laws

Democrats cannot legislate with the legislature.

They could have passed a law reversing it, but , no, MUCH EASIER to "legislate" by JUDICIAL FIAT, with an APPOINTED, UNELECTED JUDGE.


And the Democrats MANY PROBLEMS with the Constitution continue....
 
Democrats cannot legislate with the legislature.

They could have passed a law reversing it, but , no, MUCH EASIER to "legislate" by JUDICIAL FIAT, with an APPOINTED, UNELECTED JUDGE.


And the Democrats MANY PROBLEMS with the Constitution continue....

Democrats don't control the legislature in Wisconsin. Fail #1

The US Constitution is not in play here. Wisconsin's is. Fail #2

You are ok with a duly elected governor being stripped of power because he's a Democrat. Fail #3
 
Another bold faced effort by the GOP to bulldoze norms shunted into the ditch as it should have been.
 
Another bold faced effort by the GOP to bulldoze norms shunted into the ditch as it should have been.

Didn't win the election? Hey no problem. We'll just strip the incoming Dem administration of governing powers.

The former "law and order" party in action. And it's not isolated. They also pulled this crap in other states.
 

Protesting and handcuffing an incoming administration are hardly equitable actions Harshaw.

Thank God we have judges who won't put up with this sleazy crap.
 
Democrats don't control the legislature in Wisconsin. Fail #1

The US Constitution is not in play here. Wisconsin's is. Fail #2

You are ok with a duly elected governor being stripped of power because he's a Democrat. Fail #3


The US Constitution is "in play" from coast to coast.


DEMCORATS CANNOT WIN IN THE LEGISLTAURE(s), so they rely on APPOINTED JUDGES to "legislate" for them = AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.


I'm "OK" with the LEGISLATURE LEGISLATING, not UN-ELECTED JUDGES, expressing THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS FROM THE BENCH.
 
Protesting and handcuffing an incoming administration are hardly equitable actions Harshaw.

Are they, and declaring the winner "Not My President," examples of "accepting defeat with grace"?

Of course not.

And Abrams and Gillum haven't yet accepted defeat AT ALL.

(But you're right; they're not "equitable" actions. I don't think you meant to use that word.)
 
Good thing the judge followed the law, rather than your emotive appeal ...

My response wasn't about anything the judge did. It was about the OP's deeply partisan ideas about who "accepts defeat with grace."
 
My response wasn't about anything the judge did. It was about the OP's deeply partisan ideas about who "accepts defeat with grace."
Then what was the relevance?
 
Republicans cannot legislate with honor, nor accept defeat with grace.
Democrats cannot legislate with the legislature.
We attack each other's party while the country is being burned by BOTH SIDES. Why do we do this? Why do we allow this R/D dichotomy to pit us against each other instead of against government corruption from BOTH PARTIES?? It's exactly what they want us to do!!

"Let me...warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effect of the spirit of party" - George Washington
 
Didn't see that; you must have edited your post as I was replying ...

Yeah, I edited it. I guess you must have viewed the post very quickly because I edited within a few seconds of the original post. Looks like you caught the edit when you hit reply, though. One of those weird and confusing timing issues the board sometimes produces.
 
The whole WI lame duck thing is nothing new, but is still deeply disgusting. If you've been voted out, you've been told your desires are not those of the people you represent. You've been told to stand down and wait for someone who better represents what the people in your state want.

It looks like the judge had to rule on a technicality about who called the session, but that just means he didn't have to get into a useless debate on what constitutes an emergency situation.

Good on them for rolling those things back.
 
We attack each other's party while the country is being burned by BOTH SIDES. Why do we do this? Why do we allow this R/D dichotomy to pit us against each other instead of against government corruption from BOTH PARTIES?? It's exactly what they want us to do!!

"Let me...warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effect of the spirit of party" - George Washington
it goes further than that.

Militants have been allowed to dictate the discussions of late.
not just on simple matters but on everything.

These militants are fascists of the highest order.

They do not believe in the freedom of expression or the freedom of thought.
you are 100% not allowed to contradict their views or you will be punished and hanged.
 
We attack each other's party while the country is being burned by BOTH SIDES. Why do we do this? Why do we allow this R/D dichotomy to pit us against each other instead of against government corruption from BOTH PARTIES?? It's exactly what they want us to do!!

"Let me...warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effect of the spirit of party" - George Washington

Once people choose teams it's can quickly devolve into only being concerned with winning as it relates to party only. Instead of viewing political parties as idea pools to solve problems, we're devolving into chimps throwing turds.
 
Yeah, I edited it. I guess you must have viewed the post very quickly because I edited within a few seconds of the original post. Looks like you caught the edit when you hit reply, though. One of those weird and confusing timing issues the board sometimes produces.
No biggie. It happens. We're good! :cheers:
 
Are they, and declaring the winner "Not My President," examples of "accepting defeat with grace"?

Of course not.

And Abrams and Gillum haven't yet accepted defeat AT ALL.

(But you're right; they're not "equitable" actions. I don't think you meant to use that word.)

Abrams and Gillum are handcuffing incoming administrations?
 
My response wasn't about anything the judge did. It was about the OP's deeply partisan ideas about who "accepts defeat with grace."

Locking the steering wheel on incoming administrations probably qualifies as a much deeper example no matter how you slice it, which is why the judge decided it was worth an injunction.
 
Locking the steering wheel on incoming administrations probably qualifies as a much deeper example no matter how you slice it, which is why the judge decided it was worth an injunction.

And yet, I still wasn't referring to that.
 
Back
Top Bottom