Short statements to the press do not (and, in many instances, cannot) address the carefully-reasoned finer distinctions in a complex situation. The NYT was succinct in its explanation, but everyone who can click to this blawwg is capable of digesting the contents of the source material, rather than leave it to others to interpret for us.
Here is one of many worthy nuggets, (typos intact):
“Sections 66.0506, 118.245, 111.70(1)(f), 111.70 (3g), 111.70 (4) (mb) and 111.70 (4)(d)3 single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and the United States Constitutions.
These are fundamental rights and the infringement having been shown, the burden shifts to the defendants to establish that the harm done to the constitutional right is outweighed by the evil it seeks to prevent. Because defendants contend there is no infringement of the rights of speech and association, they offer no evidence of the evil the government seeks to prevent by the infringing provisions. Without any evidence or argument that the infringement serves to prevent an evil in the operation of the bargaining system created by the statutes, the court must find the infringement to be excessive and to violate the constitutional rights of free speech and association.”
BTW, this is not the author of the document:
…nor does this image accurately represent the writer:
Sorry, I have to leaven. I will, however, warn those who share the Proofreading Disease with moi that there are causes to cringe (pp. 2 & 17, for instances). http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/120914mti_v_walker.pdf
Leave a comment
No comments yet.
Creative Camerawork 
Leave a Reply