Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, they had enough power left to Amend the State Constitution....
That is hard to do, unless the recent election was rigged and dems really don't have the support they think they do.
Reverting to the "rigged election" deflection again? It's just as though a giant "Roomba" automatic sweeper was cleaning up right-wing corruption across the country. The momentum is building and it can't be stopped. It would be a good time for Trump's supporters to dis-identify themselves with him, slip off to obscurity and hope to go unnoticed in the future.
As a Wisconsinite, I am happy that GOP thug Walker lost, which is WHY he wants this last-minute power grab. It's simply a direct "FU" to voters for voting him out. Thank you for posting this! Americans need to be well-aware of this type of GOP corruption that is permeating this country. Now, our next step is getting Evers to redraw the legislative map so that we can vote these gerrymandered GOP thugs out of office!
Yes it does. That's why Congress created a regulatory review period for any regulations passed within the last 8 months of an outgoing presidency. See also: the current New Jersey gerrymander power grab; or the Massachusetts Democrats stripping Mitt Romney of his power to appoint a replacement for John Kerry when he ran for President; or outgoing IL Democrat Pat Quinn saddling incoming Bruce Rauner with a bunch of last-minute political appointees, just to name a few off the top of my head. And speaking of jerrymandering, let's not even get started on the naked power grab that process is for either party when they have the chance to work it to their advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
The GOP has turned into something absolutely anti-American.
Yeah sorry, trying to hamstring the opposite party is as American as apple pie. It was even the primary force behind our first presidential impeachment. And as "anti-American" goes, Walker's coup de grace is nothing compared to the Wisconsin Democrats literally fleeing the state to prevent a legislative quorum, or launching a recall campaign against Walker because they didn't like his policy initiatives. So they can cry me a new Wisconsin River about Walker playing hardball on his way out the door -- I'm not the least bit sympathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
Wisconsin’s Scott Walker Signs Bills Stripping Powers From Incoming Governor
To do so after the election has taken place is probably not going to hold up in the courts.
Why not? There's a 200-year tradition of lame-duck legislation in this country. Some aspects may be struck down on the merits, but they won't be struck down just because you don't like when they were passed.
Now, our next step is getting Evers to redraw the legislative map so that we can vote these gerrymandered GOP thugs out of office!
As I said upthread, not likely to change the balance of power. Did you read the recent analysis in the Journal week ago? Here's a teeny excerpt -
Quote:
...........under even an unbiased map, the concentration of Democratic voters in urban areas is going to limit Democrats’ voting power across 99 Assembly districts. This has become an even bigger problem for Democrats because the party has lost ground in rural areas in recent years.
Democrats are destined under these circumstances to underperform their statewide vote when it comes to how many Assembly seats they win.
Read the entire article. Balance of power in our legislature isn't changing much - even after the maps are redrawn. GOP will still most likely control, but not in quite the lopsided way they do now.
Wisconsin’s Scott Walker Signs Bills Stripping Powers From Incoming Governor
To do so after the election has taken place is probably not going to hold up in the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
Why not? There's a 200-year tradition of lame-duck legislation in this country. Some aspects may be struck down on the merits, but they won't be struck down just because you don't like when they were passed.
To change the function of an office AFTER the public has voted on it is changing the will of the people.
The people chose an individual to take an office with certain well understood functions, which may have also been the subject of campaign promises. The public understands the person is taking an office under certain conditions. To change the functions or authority of that office after the fact is thwarting the will of the people.
Had the legislature done this well before the election, before anyone knew who would prevail in the election, then perhaps either candidate would be bound to it and the public would understand the function of the position they were filling was presently changing. After reflecting on it the people would also have been able to voice their approval or disapproval of their state legislators' decision at that time on the ballot.
The Republicans could have otherwise have made this the subject of a plebiscite, a proposition put to the voters at the same time as the general election. That would have been much more fair.
By changing the office and it's authority after the election, they are effectively disenfranchising the voting public. This is getting to be an all-to-familiar theme with Republicans of late.
This definitely stinks of dirty deeds, and can only make the public irate.
To change the function of an office AFTER the public has voted on it is changing the will of the people.
The people chose an individual to take an office with certain well understood functions, which may have also been the subject of campaign promises. The public understands the person is taking an office under certain conditions. To change the functions or authority of that office after the fact is thwarting the will of the people.
Had the legislature done this well before the election, before anyone knew who would prevail in the election, then perhaps either candidate would be bound to it and the public would understand the function of the position they were filling was presently changing. After reflecting on it the people would also have been able to voice their approval or disapproval of their state legislators' decision at that time on the ballot.
The Republicans could have otherwise have made this the subject of a plebiscite, a proposition put to the voters at the same time as the general election. That would have been much more fair.
By changing the office and it's authority after the election, they are effectively disenfranchising the voting public. This is getting to be an all-to-familiar theme with Republicans of late.
This definitely stinks of dirty deeds, and can only make the public irate.
It may stink and it may make the public irate, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The people who passed it were also voted into office with well understood functions by a will of the people. They will have a chance to express their will again in two years, and if they're irate enough they'll correct the situation.
Then I'll help you: it's politics as usual. This happens all the time in state politics when there's a changing of the guard.
This isn't politics as usual. It's call being sore losers who don't care about the will of the people. The people have spoken yet they don't care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
