JS Online reports:
The office of Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) said the senator has been subjected to damage of personal property and has received threatening statements in the wake of mass protests in recent weeks over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill.Kapanke have been unavailable, but an aide to Kapanke says that windows on Kapanke’s car were broken in Madison and the senator’s wife found nails strewn on the driveway of their home.According to Rose Smyrski of Kapanke’s staff:Nails were scattered on his driveway twice last week. The incidents were reported to the La Crosse Police Department.Also, Kapanke’s’s windshield was damaged on March 9 after the Senate voted on the budget-repair bill. Kapanke was advised by Capitol police he would not be able to reach his car parked on the Capitol Square because of protesters. A state trooper moved the car, and when Kapanke went to his car a short time later, he found a hole in the windshield. He drove home to La Crosse. He reported the damage on Wednesday to Capitol police.
Now I won't point a finger, but the Las Vegas Odds are it was a union leftist, as this took place right after the budget vote.
15 comments:
It sounds a lot like Greece to me. I can't believe that union members would be so violent and lawless. They don't care one bit about people as long as they get what they want from we the tax payers and the private sector.
lol...sounds a lot like South Carolina and the Tea Party there. It saddens me to see Unionists resort to Tea Party violence. We should do better.
But we are all sinners and fall short of God's glory.
If the law enforcement of Wisconsin cannot protect elected law makers, then the FBI should be brought in to handle these felonious actions.
Now a left leaning judge puts a restraining order on the new law.
If the lawless left continue to be rewarded for their actions, then it should be OK for the right to become lawless against their opposition too! The left has created precedence.
For the left to continue their lawless ways creates a melting pot for civil unrest between opposing point of views!
Yes sir Chris, the left unionist only know how to get their point across by threats/intimidation/violence, because they are too stupid to use logic.
And as AP tells us the liberal activist judges puts on hold the enactment of this law.... without even looking at the merit of the arguments about the law and whether the Senators were in violation of the open Meetings Law.
As stated in the law;
Section II
"WHEN DOES THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW APPLY?"
c. State Legislature.
"The open meetings law also does not apply where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate, or assembly."
The Senate Rule only requires it to be posted and the committee meeting can proceed immediately.
Now look at this:
Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81 - 19.98 (2007-08)
GENERAL DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS 19.85
"(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting."
The law pretty much gives a loophole, which the Reps took advantage of with a 2 hour notice, even though they didn't have to, because Senate Dems failure of the duties to do the job they were elected to do. Which is good cause, they left the state and refused to return.
Mark, Can i ask, What was the "GOOD CAUSE" that such notice impossible or impractical?
I've read plenty of opinions that go both ways on this. So we will see how this plays out.
I am more interested in the discussion surrounding whether a judge can stay a law from taking effect over the means by which it was adopted than i am the stay. I think the stay is appropriate till they figure out the meetings act question.
Joe Tea Party protester has ever been arrested. There were 14 arrested in Lansing alone. Look at the Capitols or the National Mall when we are done protesting in it and then look at the union left-wing pigs. It was Tea Partiers that cleaned up the Wisconsin Capitol after those animals got done with it. There hasn't been one Tea Party violence other then left-wing beating up black Tea Partiers and calling them the N-word.
You are right Joe all have fallen short of the glory of God. But the left-wing do it on purpose with vim and vigor. Your side wants violence and tells the rioters to bring blood into the streets.
But what would anyone expect from the ideology that kills babies in the womb and are proud of it,put abortion clinics in black areas to kill black babies as crime prevention, let petifiles go, take the side of illegal immigrants over citizens and legal immigrants, let sick babies and elderly die because of the cause and natural selection. What would we expect form the people that give little to charety while demanding everyone else give more.
Joe shouldn't a law stay a law unless it is proven to be illegal? Isn't that how laws work? Isn't that how obamacare is working? Shouldn't law be considered law until found otherwise by the highest court? There is presidence for that fact.
First, Joe, the law is quite clear "The open meetings law also does not apply where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate, or assembly."
That takes the precedence. And the suit should have ben tossed on that merit.
Second, good cause for impossible is that (as stated before) the Wisconsin 14 AWOL's left their jobs and the state and publicly stated they flat out refused to return as long as collective bargaining was in any legislation.
They hijacked the democratic process.
As for the stay, I think a judge needs clear their docket to have an important case, such as this, argued.
This does nothing but dither the objective along to prevent it's goal to be achieved so the citizens can see that all of this IS for the betterment of the state.
The left and unions don't want the citizens of Wisconsin to see the effects, until they have collected enough signatures for a recall.
Pretty obvious what is taking place here.
Mark,
As far as you are concerned the law is clear, but there have been more than a few lawyers, law professors and other legal scholars who disagree with you, so excuse me for not taking your side automatically. Are you okay with that?
So if i take your suggestion correctly, the fact that 14 senators were absent and not returning is good enough cause to set aside a rule and rush to vote. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The conditions for the vote were going to be them same whether or not they waited the 24 hours right? They weren't going to lose a quorum or members by waiting.
See what your not realizing is that cause would require you to show why "YOU HAD TO HURRY the MEETING UP" which the absence doesn't do. Was it impossible to hold the vote and meeting 24 hours later? No it wasn't.
as for what you consider obvious i am baffled. A stay or temporary restraining order blocking a law that won't go into effect until 6 days from now isn't anything like you suggested. Perhaps she'll rule by then or soone after.
and Mark, what would the effects of this bill be? Its was a non-budgetary bill. It stripped them of collective bargaining only. No monetary savings in the bill(law).
"Are you okay with that?"
Sure, I am getting use to you not absorbing my opinion on logical thought. :)
"set aside a rule and rush to vote"
A rule that doesn't apply "where it conflicts with a rule of the Legislature, senate, or assembly."
This is a no-brainer.
It's not a case of rush to vote, there was no rush to vote. The passing of Budget bill was hijacked by the AWOL's and sat in limbo for over 2 weeks. The Dems got out maneuvered while they were on hiatus and so to move the legislative process along, as they were elected to do, they striped it from the budget and got "work" accomplished. The indexed rule doesn't apply in this instance as it is clearly stated in Sec II, part C.
But by bring the indexed rule in to a court room, just dithers the objective to pass legislation along and apply the law.
"effect until 6 days from now"
The SOS could post it at any time, but the SOS (D) has clearly stated (before the stay) that they will post the law at the very last second, allowed by law... Dithering once again to keep the effects of the law enacted to reach the citizens.
"what would the effects of this bill be"
It complements the budget bill, once they can get the Dems to be a part of the duties they were elected to do and pass a one.
FYI, Joe. As a final word on this, This from host.madison.com http://goo.gl/K8iNQ
The Senate Rule 93 says that when the Legislature is in special session, "A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board."
That's the rule Republican leaders are citing in their contention that one of the votes leading up to passage of Gov. Scott Walker's controversial anti-union bill was legal.
One ironic footnote: The rule was written in 1983 by two of the Democratic senators who left Wisconsin last month to avoid voting on the bill, Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville, and Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison.
Mark,
Thats not what i asked, so be comfortable with whatever you tell yourself. Call it what you wish. I can't change how you'll see it anyways.
As for the rules of special session, the two or twenty four hour requirements that will be decided by a judge, or judges, not you or me. And up until the last post about the special session rules, your beliefs were not grounded in logic. Logic would deny your claims.
1. If i understand it correctly the meeting was not just a Senate meeting but of joint committee that was challenged, so Senate rules alone don't apply.
2. You haven't yet proven why the meeting HAD to be held prior to 24 hours. Good cause and logic would ask that you prove why you HAD to have the meeting then. It is simply not logical to assert that the lack of 14 senators is grounds to move a meeting up.
"your beliefs were not grounded in logic."
Most people see that as logical, except for the liberal elite and privilege unions with special laws that have been granted.
Again the Senate rule and the Statue allows a posting of the meeting and to commence with such meeting.
The law is the law.
Here I'll post it again:
Section II
"WHEN DOES THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW APPLY?"
c. State Legislature.
"The open meetings law also -->does, not<--- apply where it conflicts with --->a rule of the Legislature, senate, or assembly.<---"
"The Senate Rule 93 says that when the Legislature is in special session, "A notice of a committee meeting is not required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board."
Get wise!
mark,
If you would care to apply logic to what i wrote you'd find two things.
1. I said, "Up until your last post about special session rules, your beliefs were not grounded in logic. In saying that i suggested
A. Thats the post about special session rules was logical to me
B. The previous post March 19, 2011 11:26 AM was not. It contained a number of statements concerning things which had no effect or even reason to be part of a discussion on good cause if we were discussing it logically.
2. You continually run to rules that aren't applicable to the situation we are discussing. I made that point my last post and yet you respond again with Senate rules.
3. The complaint listed a number of factors that could give the plaintiffs a victory in court. It did not solely rely on the timing of the vote.
Post a Comment