Protasiewicz says he won’t give up the case, challenging the Wisconsin 10 – WisConsin Public Radio News Law

A lawsuit challenging the Wisconsin Law, the Law on the signature of former governor Scott Walker, who effectively terminates the collective rights to negotiate most public officials, will take some time to break through the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

But once he gets there, Justice Janet Protasiewicz plans to look at the case.

The court announced the decisions in two orders on Wednesday afternoon. In one, she refused the claim of the plaintiffs, a teaching union, to bypass the Court of Appeal and to go directly before the State Supreme Court.

In an additional order issued simultaneously, Protasiewicz wrote that it would not withdraw, despite the request of GOP legislators.

“After carefully reviewing the movement documents and all the relevant legal authorities, I determine that neither the facts nor the law support the legislature’s request for refusal,” Protasiewicz wrote. “That’s why I deny it.”

Leadership from the GOP state legislative body called on Protasiewicz to cancel as it participated in the mass protests that covered the State Capitol in 2011 when Act 10 passed.

The passage of the law also caused efforts to withdraw against Walker, and Protasiewicz signed that it recalls the petition.

Protasiewicz is part of a 4-3 liberal majority that is seen as key to efforts to annul the law. Justice Brian Hegeder, a conservative, announced last month that he would cancel that he would listen to the case because he had served as a legal board of Walker, helping to draw up the bill, which eventually became Act 10.

In December, a judge of the District District Court of Dane found that law 10 violated the state constitution, making the way to the law to be annulled. This decision is currently being made while Republicans in the state legislative body pursue their complaint.

In her decision not to repeal, Protaseiwicz wrote that her previous actions criticizing the adoption of the Law 10 and the supporting rights of the Union do not constitute a “significant personal interest” that should disqualum her to listen to the case.

“If that was the rule, then justice related to a doctor may be disqualified by cases of abuse of medical practices. Former NRA members may be disqualified by the cases of second amendment. Participants in free speech rallies may be disqualified by the cases of first amendment. The judges who voted in elections may be disqualified by cases challenging election results, “she writes. “Where will it end?”

Protasiewicz stated that its opinions on the law and the Constitution represent a personal opinion, not in personal interest or in advance involvement with the result of the case.

According to state legislation, the judges of the Wisconsin Supreme Court should withdraw from cases where they believe they have been able to be objective or if they have committed to manage in a certain way but depends on the individual judges to decide whether the conflict is there S

Editor’s note: This story will be updated.