I’m not a huge fan of Milwaukee’s new sick-leave ordinance

February 6th, 2009

But I don’t see how a judge would have the power to keep it from going into effect after it was instated by a popular vote UNLESS there’s some question of the law’s constitutionality (which doesn’t seem to be the case here).

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Billiam  |  February 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Elliot, remember the first vote in California regarding gay marriage? A court through it out. They had to have another one, and that’s headed for court. The Mass courts created gay marriage without any input from the citizens of Mass. Haven’t you figured it out? Whether you agree with a piece of legislation or not, the will of the people has been suborned for the will of the Court, or the will of they who rule. Will of the people or Constitutionality? NOT!

  • 2. illusory tenant  |  February 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    Today’s injunction is temporary; it prevents the ordinance’s enforcement while the underlying lawsuit is resolved.

    That lawsuit does indeed raise a number of constitutional challenges.

    If you go to MMAC’s webpage here and click on “Temporary Injunction Brief,” you’ll find a detailed explanation of MMAC’s argument against the ordinance.

  • 3. Elliot  |  February 6th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Thank you, illusory!

    That’s what I like about having readers who are smarter than I am.

  • 4. illusory tenant  |  February 6th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Not smarter, I just have no life.

  • 5. Billiam  |  February 7th, 2009 at 7:08 am

    IT, sure you do! I’d bet that you enjoy reading those legal opinions, as well as the cases themselves. Why else would you do it? That’s why I enjoy it when you and mr. Rick debate.

  • 6. John Foust  |  February 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    The reporter did use the word “temporary”.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.