The 4-3 party-line vote ruling brought a vow from the state AFL-CIO that it will continue the fight against the Right – but at the ballot box, starting with July 12 recall elections against six Republican state senators who helped ram Walker’s law through.

"The inability of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to separate partisan politics from the well-being of Wisconsinites is the latest indication that citizens do not have a voice in this state,” said state AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt. “The only way for Wisconsinites to repair that voice is to take back the Senate this summer, stop Walker\'s unbridled assault on working people and take back the statehouse in 2012.”

Walker shoved the anti-union bill through the state senate, which is 19-14 Republican, after the Democrats initially halted it by decamping from the state, preventing a quorum on what Walker had called a budget bill. Amid massive uproar and tens of thousands of protesters on the Capitol grounds, Walker and the GOP then deleted the budget provisions and the remaining GOP senators approved it, 18-1.

Walker’s law made Wisconsin the leading front in the state-by-state war on workers and the middle class being waged by Republicans, big business and the Radical Right. Support for Wisconsin workers was galvanized worldwide – even among Egyptian revolutionaries – and up to 100,000 descended upon the state capitol building in Madison. Some are still there in a tent city, “Walkerville.”

But Dane County (Madison) Circuit Court Judge Maryanne Sumi, a GOP appointee, halted Walker’s law by ruling its passage violated the state Open Meetings Act. The state Supreme Court overturned her injunction, reinstating Walker’s law.

"Let\'s be clear: This ruling will not silence the voices of millions of Wisconsinites who are appalled by Walker\'s extreme choices, his addiction to corporate interests and his insistence on putting the wealthy ahead of the working. In their attempt to steamroll education, healthcare, and funding for seniors programs, Republicans have alienated countless Wisconsin families,” Neuenfeldt continued.

“Now, more than ever, Wisconsinites across the state are committed to holding Republicans accountable for their bad choices.

"This ruling is an affront to our democracy. Green-lighting the sort of shady, backroom tactics Walker used to ram his extreme budget through the legislature sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our state. Democracy is the system by which all people, not just corporations and the wealthy, have a seat at the table – but this ruling is just one more indication that Wisconsin Republicans do not believe in a functioning, sound democracy inclusive of checks and balances," Neuenfeldt ended.

The majority ruling in the case mentioned none of that.

“One of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature,” the majority wrote.

“It is important for all courts to remember that Article IV, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: ‘The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.’ Article IV, Section 17…provides in relevant part: ‘No law shall be in force until published. The legislature shall provide by law for the speedy publication of all laws,’” the majority’s opinion said.

In a 1943 case, the justices added, their court “addressed whether a court has the power to enjoin publication of a bill duly enacted by the legislature…The court then explained that the “judicial department has no jurisdiction or right to interfere with the legislative process. That is something committed by the constitution entirely to the legislature itself.”

The court held that “because under our system of constitutional government, no one of the co-ordinate departments can interfere with the discharge of the constitutional duties of one of the other departments, no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any point.”

Adding insult to the decision, Justice Scott Prosser – a Walker ally who is leading in a disputed election for the court’s swing 7th seat – told the unions and their allies not to bother challenging Walker’s law after its reinstatement. Prosser was one of the four-justice majority ruling for Walker.

“Attacking the constitutionality of an act after it has been published is quite different from attacking its validity before it becomes law. This must be acknowledged. Nonetheless, no useful purpose would be served by inviting a new series of challenges to 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 after publication of the act has been completed,” Prosser wrote in a separate concurring opinion.

The justices then tossed out Judge Sumi’s injunction, which had prevented publication of Walker’s law – and barred it from taking effect.

Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc.. Used by permission.