a ruling by the Appellate Court, which also refused to put a stay on Judge Colas ruling that Act 10 was unconstitutional:
A Wisconsin Court of Appeals today refused to put on hold a judge's decision repealing major parts of Gov. Scott Walker's Act 10, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers.The actual ruling is here, via WisPolitics.com.
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen had asked the 4th District Court of Appeals to place the September ruling of Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas on hold while Van Hollen appeals the decision.
The Appeals Court today upheld that decision, leaving the status of Act 10 in limbo. The Appeals Court said it saw "no basis to set aside the circuit court's decision that a stay was not warranted."
Today’s ruling likely sets the stage for Van Hollen to take the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court has a 5-to-4 majority.
To refresh the gentle reader's memory of what Judge Colas' ruling was about, the Wisconsin State Journal has a good, succinct version:
In his original ruling, Colas said the law violates school and local employees' constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation because it caps union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts.Now that the court case is on its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the election on April 2nd should be on top of everyone's mind.
The decision allowed schools and local governments to bargain with their employees, and several, including those in Madison, acted quickly to take advantage of the window to reach new contacts.
Van Hollen argued in his request for a stay that not taking swift action would lead to chaos and further confusion, given that the law has been in effect for more than a year. Van Hollen also argued that there was confusion over whether the lower court's ruling was effective statewide.
I don't know whether Justice Ed Fallone would vote to uphold Judge Colas' ruling or not. But I do know that if he were to rule to overturn the lower court's finding, it would be based on the law and the Constitution.
I also know that Justice Roggensack would rule to overturn the lower court, regardless of the law and the Constitution.
How do I know that? Simple. By her track record.
She has shown that she is in cahoots with the likes of David "Chokehold" Prosser by recusing herself from his ethics case long before the case was even brought before her, since it hasn't even been presented to this date. Even worse, the law shows that she shouldn't be recusing herself in the first place.
And we know that not only is she being sponsored by out of state special interests, like the education profiteers and the Koch Brothers, but she is trying to hide the fact from the public.
Experience tells us that these big money donors are not giving her all this lucre because they think she's a fair judge. They're doing it because they know that her vote can be bought. We also know that Roggensack's sponsors are vehemently against workers and will do anything to keep Act 10 alive.
These big money donors are the same ones that brought us the likes of Prosser; Michael Gableman, who is also under investigation still; Annette Ziegler, who was reprimanded for her poor ethics; and Scott Walker, the only sitting governor to have a legal defense fund and who had to buy his way out of being charged (for now).
It is time and beyond time that we restore dignity and ethics to the Supreme Court and restore law to this state. It is time that we elect Ed Fallone to be our next Supreme Court Justice.