Most likely open meeting provisions, b33, but the pubs knew that anyway....the drama of doing it like they did served their purpose, but as you note....they'll just pass it again anyway. I bet some of the pubs view the extra drama it as good news, in spite of any potential recall petitions.
Huh? Being in the news about breaking the rules while passing an unpopular bill is somehow beneficial for Republicans? I doubt even Walker himself wouldn't spin it like that.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/judge-blocks-wisconsins-union-busting-bill-on-procedural-grounds.phpA state judge in Wisconsin has just issued a temporary restraining order blocking Gov. Scott Walker's (R-WI) newly-passed law curtailing public employee unions, on the grounds that the GOP-controlled legislature appeared to have violated state public notice requirements when quickly passing the bill last week.
"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," wrote Judge Maryann Sumi, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.
A key thing to note here is that this is a procedural objection, and not a constitutional finding based on the content of the law itself. As such, even if the bill's opponents secure a permanent injunction in further litigation -- and then prevail in any appeals to higher courts -- the Republican-controlled could still theoretically get together and pass the bill again.
But of course, that would involve having the legislature convene again, protesters swarming the Capitol again, and a very tough vote occurring in a rerun. Even if the Republicans were willing to do that, it would only give further political fuel to the Dems.
