4 Burst results for "Chief Justice Pat Rogan"

"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on News Talk 1130 WISN

News Talk 1130 WISN

03:33 min | 1 year ago

"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on News Talk 1130 WISN

"Whether or not a voter is indefinitely confined or not, that if people have a problem with the voter, declaring themselves indefinitely confined when they're not that there are other means of dealing with this, But you can't give clerks the legal authority to not call it a vote on the basis of a voter statement that they are indefinitely confide. So that was not dealt with in the main lawsuit. So those were the four areas that they came up with that the majority decided that they were not going to overturn the results of the election in other than the indefinitely confined component. In the opinion written by Hagedorn. They said that even if there was an error in the application of Wisconsin, the election law Who not count ballots in which we don't even know which way all of the voters voted, and to throw out tens of thousands of ballots when people voted in good faith being told by their local officials that these air what the laws were and Given the fact that in every single one of these cases, the Republicans in Wisconsin could have gone to court well before the election and dealt with this then, but instead waited until after they lost. Cry and retroactively changed the rules after the fact we're not going to overturn the results of the election, the three actual conservatives on the court Dissented. Chief Justice Pat Rogan sack. Rebecca Bradley. And remember there's two Bradleys. There's conservative Bradley. That's Rebecca. And there's liberal Bradley, which is an Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Bradley, Rogan Sack and Um Oh, and it's Sigler they descended. The ruling was 4 to 3. And they argued that This has been going on for way too long that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court's majority that the three liberals was haggard word keeps saying that they don't have the authority to deal with things that are a violation of the law. In their dissent. They said, Look Where the Supreme Court that job of the Supreme Court is to decide what the law says. If you've got one person saying the law says this at another person saying the law says that that's what the Supreme Court is there to resolve that dispute by declaring what the law actually says. And the three conservatives in their descent, said. We have been punting. The Supreme Court has been punting on this to log. If the law has been violated, we need to declare that the law has been violated and address it. And if the law has been violated, We have to determine what the remedy is. And they essentially made the point that an illegally cast vote. He is just that and illegally cast vote without regard to Wyatt is in illegally cast mode. No. Most of this. In terms of who won the presidential election is academic. In order for Trump to win, you would need more states than just Wisconsin to be overturned. If the state Supreme Court overturned Wisconsin. Biden would be ahead to 90 60 to 42 somewhat arguable. Trump could win challenges and a few other states at overturned those results. So what is somewhat academic? If this election was decided, by say to see, you know, let's suppose Biden won by four electoral votes and flipping Wisconsin would have changed the result of the election. It would have made this decision. Even more controversial. Using a football analogy. They.

Wisconsin State Supreme Court Rebecca Bradley Wisconsin Chief Justice Pat Rogan Walsh Bradley Hagedorn Biden Trump Rogan Sack football Wyatt Sigler
"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on The Mark Belling Show

The Mark Belling Show

09:12 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on The Mark Belling Show

"Not Divided Wisconsin Supreme Court by vote. Afford three today struck down the order. Issued by the Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm the Disney of governor. Tony Uber's that has restricted all sorts of activity in business and commerce and people's individual activities in Wisconsin through may twenty six. I've had an opportunity to very quickly read through the entire order. There are a number of concurring opinions and descends on the first question. How did the vote break down? It broke down conservative. Liberal lines with one of the Conservatives will think over to join the Liberals descended big as I said. The vote was four to three justice. Brian Hagedorn who was elected last year joined the to Liberal. Justices Rebecca Brat Rebecca Dalit and an walls Bradley in dissenting from the opinion of the five conservatives on the State Supreme Court Haggard on has been so far at his brief term the wobbly est of those and the likeliest not to stick with the other conservative colleagues so the vote was for three. Many people have wondered why the Supreme Court was taking as long as it was well all of these opinions. I log the concurring. Opinions are long that essentially and each of the justices. I think why did away with their legal reasonings on this also. Clearly there was disagreement in the court on this given the fact that it ended up being a four three ruling and not five to as many had expected the four justices that are voting to strike down. The law are the Chief Justice Pat Rogan sack. Rebecca Bradley Remember. There are two Bradley's Rebecca Bradley who refers to herself as Rebecca Grasso Bradley. She is the conservative of the two Bradley's and walls Bradley's the liberal so again voting to strike down the Order Chief Justice Pat Ryan Zach Justice Rebecca Bradley Justice Annette Siegler and justice. Daniel Kelly now. Kelly ran for reelection to the corded April and loss but his term continues until August. And he's still on the court in the interim suffice to say that if this had all happened in a few months this order would have been upheld because Kelly would not have been on the court so for people who have not understood the impact of Supreme Court rulings and the importance of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. This rule late here is one that would not have occurred the way that it did in a few months and voting to descend voting against the ruling. As I said we're Hagedorn who has been described as a conservative but in this case joined the other two liberals on the court. Rebecca Dalit and Ann Walsh Bradley. One of the things that I have been speculating. Odd was whether or not the court would address the original Tony. Iverson's order or simply the order from Andrea Palm and the are focused here on the only order that remains relevant. Which is Andrea Palm? Because Iverson's is emergency authority as governor has expired? The Department of Health Services Secretary by law has emergency authority that goes on forever but that authority is not without limit and the State Supreme Court. In the primary opinion. That was authored. By justice. Chief Justice ragging sack said that palm exceeded her legal authority at in particular given the fact that her order included criminal penalties all of those criminal sanctions that are included in. The order are struck down because they were all issued without beyond the authority. Rather of Secretary Powell. Now I'm going to quote from the ruling and then I'm going to discuss this issue of. Where are we in the State of Wisconsin? And I think you're going to see a flurry of reactions including a number of local orders being issued in the short term. I want to quote the final few paragraphs though from the order which was in by other the other justices as well again it was a four three ruling striking down the Tony Iverson Andhra palm ordering. You'll hear the name palm throughout this. She's again the cabinet member who issued the rule and under statute. She has the authority to issue emergency roles pertaining to health. This is from the Supreme Court order. We do not define the precise scope of Department of Health Services. Authority under Wisconsin Statutes. We cannot expansively read. Statutes with imprecise terminology that purport to delegate lawmaking youth authority to an administrative agency the legislature appropriately sites the statutory the statutory explicit authority requirement and has provided plausible reading of the text. We have declared rights under the law. Where Ian we have concluded that Emergency Order? Twenty eight is invalid and therefore unenforceable. That's the key language. The court is determining that the order is invalid and because it's invalid cannot be and forced on the ruling continues although a very unusual request on April twenty and I twenty twenty the legislature this court to issue a temporary injunction of emergency order twenty eight but then requested a stay of that injunction for at least six days we perceive. This request is being grounded in a concern for an order. Orderly transition from order twenty-eight offer rule however more than two weeks have passed since we began our consideration of this case therefore we trust that the legislature in palm of place. The interest of the people of Wisconsin. I and have been working together in good faith to establish a lawful that addresses covid nineteen. It's devastating effects on Wisconsin people businesses and other institutions. Need to know how to proceed. And what is expected of them? Therefore we place the responsibility for this future lawmaking with the legislature in dhs where it belongs conclusion. We conclude that Emergency Order Twenty eight. That's Sandra Palms. Order is a rural under the controlling precedent court and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the legislature. Emergency Order Twenty eight. As a general order of general application within the meaning of his constant statutes which define rule. Accordingly the rulemaking procedure Wisconsin statutes were required to be followed during the promulgation of ordered twenty eight because they were not eve. Urgency Order Twenty. Eight is enforceable. Furthermore Wisconsin Statutes require that emergency order. Twenty eight be promulgated using the procedures established by the legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow because palm did not follow the law in creating order. Twenty eight days can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wisconsin Statutes must be followed because they safeguard all people. We further conclude the palms order. Confining all people to their homes forbidding travel and closing businesses exceeded this exceeded the statutory authority of Wisconsin Statute to fifty two upon which palm claims to rely by the court palms emergency order. Twenty eight is declared unlawful invalid and unenforceable. So that's the majority opinion of Wisconsin Supreme Court. The law is in fact unlawful. It is invalid at it cannot be enforced. Doubt they referenced in here the Legislature had requested if you strike down this law that you allow it to remain in effect strike down this order. You allow to remain in effect for six days. The Supreme Court declined to do that and the Supreme Court in its opinion said and they may have tipped off what the reason was for the delay. In issuing their ruling we trust that the governor and legislature have been working together and talking in anticipation if our ruling so that'd be ready to issue a new rule once we strike this one dowd. We'll see if that's been. The case. Will the administration work with the legislature to try to issue something that can pass legislative approval. Say Tomorrow will say but as the moment there is no rule. I.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Wisconsin Supreme Court legislature Chief Justice Pat Ryan Zach Ju Rebecca Grasso Bradley State Supreme Court palm Andrea Palm Rebecca Bradley Department of Health Services Rebecca Dalit Brian Hagedorn Secretary Liberals Ann Walsh Bradley Tony Iverson Andhra Tony Uber Daniel Kelly
"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on The Mark Belling Show

The Mark Belling Show

07:04 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on The Mark Belling Show

"Going on the Saffir not divided Wisconsin. Supreme Court by vote afford three today struck down the order issued by. The Department of Health Services Secretary. Andrea Palm the Disney of governor Tony Uber's that has restricted all sorts of activity in business and commerce and people's individual activities in Wisconsin through may twenty six. I've had an opportunity to very quickly. Read through the entire order. There are a number of concurring opinions and descends on the first question. How did the vote break down? It broke down. Conservative liberal lines with one of the Conservatives will think over to join. The liberals descended big as I said the vote was four to three justice. Brian Hagedorn who was elected last year, joined the to liberal justices. Rebecca Brat Rebecca Dalit and an walls Bradley in dissenting from the opinion. Of the five conservatives on the State Supreme Court Haggard on has been so far at his brief term, the wobbly of those and the likeliest not to stick with the other conservative colleagues, so the vote was for three. Many people have wondered why. The Supreme Court was taking as long as it was well. All, of these opinions I log the concurring opinions are long that essentially and each of the justices I think why did away with their legal reasonings on this also? Clearly there was disagreement in the court on this given the fact that it ended up being a four three ruling, and not five to as many had expected. The four justices that are voting to strike down the law are the Chief Justice Pat Rogan sack. Rebecca Bradley remember there are two Bradley's Rebecca Bradley who refers to herself as Rebecca Grasso Bradley she. is the conservative of the two Bradley's and walls. Bradley's the liberal so again voting to strike down the order chief justice, Pat Reagan Sack Justice Rebecca Bradley Justice, Annette Ziegler and Justice Daniel. Kelly now Kelly ran for reelection to the corded April and loss, but his term continues until August and he's still on the court in the interim. Suffice to say. That, if this had all happened in a few months, this order would have been upheld because Kelly would not have been on the court. So for people who have not understood the impact of Supreme Court rulings and the importance of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. This rule late here is one that would not have occurred the way that it did. In a few months and voting to descend voting against the ruling as I said, we're Hagedorn, who has been described as a conservative, but in this case joined the other two liberals on the court Rebecca, Dalit, and an Walsh Bradley. One of the things that I have been speculating odd. was whether or not the court would address. The original Tony Iverson's order. Or, simply the order from Andrea. Palm and the are focused here on the only order that remains relevant. Which is Andrea? Palm! Because Iverson's is emergency authority as governor has expired the Department of Health Services Secretary by law. Has Emergency Authority that goes on forever, but that authority is not without limit. And the state. Supreme Court in the primary opinion that was authored by justice chief justice. ragging sack said that palm exceeded her legal authority. At in particular. Given, the fact that her order included criminal penalties. All of those criminal sanctions that are included in the order are struck down because they were all issued without. Beyond the authority rather of Secretary Powell. Now I'm going to quote from the ruling. And then I'm going to discuss this issue. Of where are we in the state of Wisconsin and I think you're going to see a flurry of reactions including a number of local orders being issued. In the short term. I want to quote the final few paragraphs though from the order. which was concurring by other the other justices as well again, it was a four three ruling striking down the. Tony Iverson Andhra palm ordering. You'll hear the name palm throughout this. She's again. The cabinet member who issued the rule and under statute. She has the authority to issue emergency roles pertaining to health. This is from the Supreme Court order we do not define the precise scope of department of Health Services. Authority under Wisconsin Statutes we cannot expansively read statutes with imprecise terminology that purport to delegate lawmaking authority to an administrative agency, the legislature appropriately sites, the statutory, the Statutory Explicit Authority requirement, and has provided plausible reading of the text. We have declared rights under the law where Ian. We have concluded that Emergency Order Twenty eight is invalid and therefore unenforceable. That's the key language. The court is determining that the order is invalid, and because it's invalid cannot be and forced. On the ruling continues although a very unusual request. On April Twenty, and I twenty twenty, the legislature. This court to issue a temporary injunction of emergency order twenty eight. But then requested a stay of that injunction for at least six days. We perceive this request is being grounded in a concern for an order orderly transition from order twenty-eight offer rule however. More than two weeks have passed since we began our consideration of this case therefore. We trust that the legislature in palm of place, the interest of the people of Wisconsin. I, and have been working together in good faith to establish lawful. That addresses covid nineteen. It's devastating effects on Wisconsin. People, businesses and other institutions need to know how to proceed and what is expected of them. Therefore, we place the responsibility for this future lawmaking with the legislature in DHS. Where it belongs conclusion. We conclude that emergency order twenty. That's Andrea Palms order. Is A rural under the controlling precedent of this court. And therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the legislature. Emergency Order Twenty eight as a general order of general application within the meaning of his constant statutes which define rule. Accordingly The rulemaking procedure Wisconsin statutes were required to be followed during the promulgation of ordered twenty eight because they were not. Eve Urgency Order Twenty eight is unenforceable. Furthermore..

Supreme Court Wisconsin Rebecca Bradley Rebecca Brat Rebecca Dalit Palm State Supreme Court Department of Health Services Tony Iverson Emergency Authority Rebecca Grasso Bradley Rebecca Bradley Justice Andrea Palm Brian Hagedorn Secretary Statutory Explicit Authority Walsh Bradley Andrea Andrea Palms Secretary Powell
"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on News Talk 1130 WISN

News Talk 1130 WISN

13:08 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice pat rogan" Discussed on News Talk 1130 WISN

"Activities in Wisconsin through may twenty sixth I've had an opportunity to very quickly read through the entire order there are a number of concurring opinions and dissents I'm the first question how did the boat break doubt it broke down a conservative liberal lines with one of the conservatives moving over to join the liberals the dissenting as I said the vote was four to three justice Brian Hagadorn who was elected last year joined the two liberal justices Rebecca Bradley Rebecca Dallet and Adam Walsh Bradley and dissenting from the a pay get of the five conservatives on the state Supreme Court Hagadorn has been so far it is brief term the wobbly is that those and the likely as not to stick with the other conservative colleagues so the boat was four three many people have wondered why the Supreme Court was taking as long as it was well all of these opinions are log the concurring opinions are long that a sense I log in each of the justices I think wanted to weigh in with their legal reasonings on this also clearly there was disagreement in the court I had this given the fact that it ended up being a four three ruling and not a five to as many had expected the four justices that are voting to strike down the road the law are the Chief Justice Pat Rogan sack Rebecca Bradley remember there are two Bradleys Rebecca Bradley who refers to herself as Rebecca Grasso Bradley she is the conservative of the two Bradleys Adam Walsh Bradley so liberal so again voting to strike down the order Chief Justice Pat Robbins act justice Rebecca Bradley justice and that's Sigler and justice Daniel Kelly not Kelley ran for reelection to the court in April and loss but his term continues until August and he still on the court in the entrance suffice to say that if this had all happened in a few months this order would have been a pal because Kelly would not have been on the court so for people who have not understood the impact of Supreme Court rulings and the importance of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin this ruling here is one that would not have occurred the way that he did in a few months and voting to descend to voting against the ruling as I said we're Hagadorn who has been described as a conservative but in this case joined the other two liberals on the court Rebecca Dallet and and Walsh Bradley one of the things that I have been speculating god was whether or not the court would address the original Toni E. vers order or simply the order from Andrea palm and they're focused here on the only order that remains relevant which is Andrea Paul because he purrs is emergency authority as governor has expired the department of health services secretary by law has emergency authority that goes on forever but that authority is not without limit and the state Supreme Court in the primary opinion that was authored by justice Chief Justice robin Sachs said that palm exceeded her legal authority any particular given the fact that her order included criminal penalties all of those criminal sanctions that are included in the order are struck down because they were all issued without beyond the authority rather of secretary Powell now I'm going to quote from the ruling and then I'm going to discuss this issue of where are we in the state of Wisconsin and I think you're going to see a flurry of reactions including a number of local orders being issued in the short term I want to quote the final few paragraphs though from the order which was concurred in by other the other justices as well again it was a four three ruling striking down the twenty first and reed upon ordering you hear the name Tom throughout the issues again the cabinet member who issued the rule and under statute she has the authority to issue emergency rules pertaining to health this is from the Supreme Court order we do not define the precise scope of department of health services authority under Wisconsin statutes we cannot expansively read statutes with imprecise terminology that purport to delegate lawmaking authority to an administrative agency the legislature appropriately cites the statutory except the statutory explicit authority requirement and is provided plausible reading of the text we have declared rights under the law we're in we have concluded that emergency order twenty eight is invalid and therefore enforceable that's the key language the court is determining that the order is invalid and because it's invalid cannot be enforced all right the ruling continues although a very unusual request on April twenty first twenty twenty the legislature asked this court to issue a temporary injunction of emergency order twenty eight but then requested a stay of that injunction for at least six days we perceive this request is being a grounded in a concern for an order pre orderly transition from order twenty eight to a lawful rule however more than two weeks have passed since we began our consideration of this case therefore we trust that the legislature empowerment place the interests of the people of Wisconsin first and have been working together in good faith to establish a lawful rule S. is Colbert nineteen at its devastating effects on Wisconsin people businesses and other institutions need to know how to proceed and what is expected of them therefore we place the responsibility for this future law making with the legislature in DHS where it belongs conclusion we conclude that emergency order twenty eight that Sandra poms order is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the legislature emergency order twenty eight is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wisconsin statutes which defined rule accordingly the rule making procedure of Wisconsin statutes were required to be followed during the promulgation of order twenty eight because they weren't dot Yverdon C. order twenty eight is unenforceable Furthermore Wisconsin statutes require emergency order twenty eight be promulgated using the procedures established by the legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow because palm did not follow the law in creating order twenty eight there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order the procedural requirements of Wisconsin statutes must be followed because they safeguard all people we further conclude that Tom's order confining all people to their homes in travel and closing businesses exceeded this exceeded the statutory authority of Wisconsin statute to fifty two upon which palm claims to rely by the court poms emergency order twenty eight is declared unlawful invalid and I didn't forcible so that's the majority opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court but the law is in fact unlawful it is invalid at A. cannot be enforced now they reference in here the legislature had requested if you strike down this law but you allow it to remain in a fact checked on this order you're allowed to remain in effect for six days the Supreme Court declined to do that and the Supreme Court in its opinion sad and they may have tipped off what the reason was for the delay in issuing their ruling we trust that the governor and legislature have been working together and talking in anticipation of our ruling so they'll be ready to issue a new rule once we strike this one doubt we'll see if that's been the case will the IFRS administration work with the legislature to try to issue something that can pass legislative approval say as soon as tomorrow we'll see but as of the moment there is no rule I want to read from the concurring opinion of justice Rebecca Bradley and again there's two Bradley she's the conservative the Bradleys Adam Walsh Bradley is the liberal of the Bradley they both in issuing their rulings use maiden names to identify themselves Rebecca Grasso Bradley is how she describes herself and offering her opinion said ed Walsh Bradley the liberal uses her maiden name Walsh from the concurring opinion concurring means we agree with the majority Rebecca Bradley wrote under the Wisconsin constitution all governmental power derived from the consent of the governed and government officials may act only within the confines of the authority the people give that up the people of Wisconsin never consented to any elected official much less an unelected cabinet secretary having the power to create law executed and enforce it she then puts the president whether any branch of government exceeds the boundaries of authority conferred by the people it is the duty of the judicial branch to say cell however well intentioned the secretary designate of the department of health services exceeded her powers by ordering the people of Wisconsin to follow her commands a face or face imprisonment for non compliance if the issue with your order she era gated underwear self the power to make the law and the power to execute excluding the people from the law making process altogether the separation of powers embodied in our constitution does not permit this statutory law being subordinate to the constitution not even the people's representatives in the legislature may consolidate such power in one person she then cites several presidents Rebecca Bradley then continues the people of Wisconsin announced liberty to be a primary importance establishing government principally to protect their freedom and then puts on the Wisconsin constitution and dialing one person with the sole power to create execute and enforce the law contravenes the structural separation of power established by the people you couldn't say it better than that could you get a call from the concurring opinion of Rebecca Bradley in Dowling one person with the sole power to create execute and enforce the law contravenes the structural separation of power established by the people through the Wisconsin constitution the people confer distinct powers of the legislative executive and judicial branches of government under the Wisconsin constitution the legislature makes the laws and other elected cabinet secretary serving in the executive branch cannot unilaterally do you sell so that's the concurring opinion from justice Rebecca Bradley know whether the ruling is for three or seven is interesting only in terms of the long term ramifications what's going to happen to the state Supreme Court when Daniel Kelly leaves in August but in the interim four three or seven oh this ruling is the ruling and its stats and it states that this order from the events administration is struck down now so what happens here well that's a doggone good question and I'll try to start answering this with some pretty good speculation in a moment five forty four news talk eleven thirty WYO it's time for rapid traffic I. forty three southbound at center street a crash on the right shoulder some slowing approaching that incident if you see traffic problems college tri city National Bank your hometown bank told trafficked applied for one four nine four four fifty one eleven.

Wisconsin