The fight between Judge Sumi & the Walker administration…

March 31st, 2011

…over her possibly illegal court order reminds me of something I’ve been saying for years:

I believe that the increasingly politicized nature of our court systems will eventually lead an executive branch of a state government or of the Federal government to completely ignore a decision of a Supreme Court.

After all, buy cialis ed what’s the ignored court going to do? They control no police force or military resources. They have no way to enforce their orders. Orders only have weight if the other two branches of government choose to honor them. The more the courts are seen as just another tool for one political faction or another to achieve their aims, pilule the more likely it is that the other branches will treat them with the contempt they deserve.

(Don’t assume I’m talking about liberal courts versus conservative governors. The same could happen the other way around with a conservative court and a liberal President, for example.)

Entry Filed under: Observations

9 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nick  |  March 31st, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Andrew Jackson was apparently in dispute with the Supreme Court regarding a case involving Indian Tribal Land. When the decision came down, he is quote as saying “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

  • 2. Elliot  |  March 31st, 2011 at 11:24 am

    I love that story. I’m not advocating such an outcome, by the way. I just suspect it’s on of the most likely scenarios that would lead to the end of the American republic.

  • 3. Billiam  |  April 2nd, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Elliot, the Republic died some time back. Right now it’s just the body thrashing around because it doesn’t realize it’s dead.

  • 4. John Foust  |  April 4th, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Yeah, who cares about all this “open government” and “public notice” stuff. It’s for wonks.

  • 5. Roland Melnick  |  April 8th, 2011 at 9:46 am

    “Open government”? Really? How many more TV cameras and members of the press would they have needed to shove in the room to make it “open” enough to suit your standard, John?

    Since when do judges have the power to decide on an internal procedure of another branch of government? Should they have that power?

    Elliot…Judge Sumi didn’t start us down the path to anarchy, Chris Larson and the Fleabaggers did.

  • 6. John Foust  |  April 8th, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Well, on one side Roland we have your buddies Walker and Fitz and Fitz, who have pushed the envelope on whether the Capitol needs to be open as the Constitution says, and whether the Open Meetings law has any teeth whatsoever, and whether they can decide when they can disregard a court’s TRO.

    On the other we have me and others who think it’s a good idea to notice meetings in a realistic and reasonable way, and that you should behave in a reasonably civil fashion to your cohorts regardless of their political party or how they voted on your last pet project.

  • 7. John Foust  |  April 8th, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    As for the power to decide on actions taken, our open meeting law at Wis. Stat. ยง 19.97(3) says “Any action taken at a meeting of a governmental body held in violation of this subchapter is voidable, upon action brought by the attorney general or the district attorney of the county wherein the violation occurred. However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.”

  • 8. Roland Melnick  |  April 9th, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Thanks for the info re 19.97(3), although 19.87 “Legislative meetings” is probably more on the point of whether the “open meetings” requirement applies. The absurd thing about all this is that there was nothing secretive about this meeting. The eyes of the whole State…maybe the whole country were watching.

    The statute you cite does apply to enforcement. I was asking a question which you answered…thanks.

    As for the comment before that, I’m not sure to whom you are referring when it comes to the “behaving in a reasonably civil fashion.” In my opinion, respecting your cohorts does not involve fleeing to Illinois to obstruct the process simply because you don’t agree with the proposed legislation. If one can rationalize that, one can rationalize anything.

  • 9. Roland Melnick  |  April 9th, 2011 at 12:27 am

    John, would you hold President Obama to the same standard as Governor Walker? Should the Prez press forward with the implementation of Obamacare despite multiple Federal courts ruling portions of it un-Constitutional?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta