Wis. judge nearly orders protesters out of Capitol

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald-AP

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - A judge weighing whether state officials overstepped their bounds by restricting protesters' access to the state Capitol nearly ordered all the demonstrators out on moments' notice Wednesday evening before state and union attorneys talked him out of it.

Dane County Circuit Judge John Albert has been listening to two days of testimony on whether he should make a temporary court order ensuring full public access to the building permanent. He is expected to rule on the matter Thursday.

He told the packed courtroom shortly after 6 p.m. that he wanted to test the state Department of Administration's contention that building access would return to normal quickly if the protesters who have spent the last two weeks sleeping overnight in the rotunda left. He presented a draft order that would have forced anyone who was still in the Capitol after its regular 6 p.m. closing time to be out by 8 p.m. and said he planned to have DOA officials hand one to each protester.

"It's worth a try," a weary-sounding Albert said as he massaged his temples. "They should be out of the Capitol because it's closed to business."

Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20110303/AP09/303039959

---

photo: http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=OW&Date=20110303&Category=AP09&ArtNo=303039959&Ref=AR&maxw=600&maxh=400
Wisconsin Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison, talks to protesters outside of the state Capitol Wednesday, March, 2, 2011, in Madison, Wis., after some democratic Assembly members moved their offices outside to meet with constituents. Protests to the governor's proposed budget are in their 15th day at the Capitol. (AP Photo/Andy Manis)

[inademv]

1. I can understand his reasoning

but the fact still remains that they ARE trying to keep protesters out of the building. So testing it without a solid plan to slap them for not following the order is indeed a bad idea.

[jberryhill]

2. How does a judge "nearly order" something?

In other words, the judge was drawing out arguments from both sides before rendering a decision.

How, uh, judge-like.

[SkyDaddy7]

3. Why can't the protesters come in the AM & leave in the PM?

It seems that would be the correct way to do it that no one could say was wrong...Am I missing something?

[buddysmellgood]

6. They could, but this is civil disobedience. Those sleeping over would like to be removed by force

[gkhouston]

4. Some statements in this article that don't map to what people were tweeting at

the time events were taking place. For starters, the building didn't go uncleaned for two weeks--the protesters themselves did some cleaning every day. There was testimony at yesterday's hearing that the protesters did not hinder cleaning up the building this past weekend and actually helped. A lot of the people who went home Monday left not because they didn't get arrested but because they believed they wouldn't have any trouble getting back into the building. I get the impression there's very little trust of the DoA amongst the protesters now because they've been lied to multiple times over the past several days about access to the building. Yesterday they were telling people that the "one in, one out" rule was in effect, which actually means "one goes out, and then someone else comes in" but they were making people exit and enter through separate entrances. People were exiting, but no one was being allowed to enter--except a class of fourth graders on a field trip.

I expect the judge will tell the DoA to open the building to the protesters again during the daytime hours but that the protesters will have to leave at night and that the DoA will eject the protesters and then not let anyone in at all, or let only one single person in at a time, defining that as "open". The judge needs to be pretty explicit about the definition of "open" or that's exactly what will happen.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Do not believe all that is tweeted, from Wisconsin or Libya

Well meant, but way too often partially incorrect.

That said, I believe you are correct. When the building closes for business, protesters will need to leave.

The only justifiable reason for "one in, one out" is if the building/room is at its legal capacity. That is reasonable and should be enforced. Otherwise...it is just more BS.

[gkhouston]

8. I don't believe all that is tweeted, any more than I believe all that is broadcast.

Most of the things I alluded to were subsequently backed up by testimony at the hearing or articles in local papers. It's true that you never know whether or not to believe something when you first see it on Twitter, but right now, it's beating the hell out of CNN.

[Plucketeer]

7. Light bulb finally coming on

The one in my head that is. Yes, I have understood the sub-topical forces at work in Wisconsin and on other "fronts". But those fronts have kept me from focusing on what the real goals are. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the brave protesters in WI see this as a black & white issue of them retaining their rights to a union. Same with agnry folks in other locales.
What's REALLY at stake is something WAY MORE sinister. It's something I started to get a vision of when Clinton was "treating" us to what were avant garde (for us) manuvers in the global markets. Who wouldn't think that free trade was a good thing? That international flow of goods would benefit both side of each exchange? I wasn't even a Democrat at the time - not a Republican either. But to my simple-minded powers of perception, I had this nagging wonder as to how trading with backwards nations - nations that could turn out hand-made sandals, say, as a primary product - could afford the high-tech and highly priced products made by Americans???
Instead of giving it an honest go, the old standards of US industry just closed up and went overseas. There they made the same stuff we used to and sold it to us still - at the same (now much more profit-bearing) prices as we'd happily paid before. Sure, Billy-boy left us with a "surplus". And wasn't that a nice thing for him to do. But REALLY - he fucked us. He used the same charm that seduced Monica Lewinsky to stick it to the American people.
Assess how you will - the two torturous terms with a guy you'd drink a beer with. He was different from Bill in that he was up front about what he was doing to us. The money that bought him time in the oval office was money well spent if you were thsoe who spent it.
NOW...... All Hail the Great Black Hope. Even Rachel Maddow couldn't hide her disappointment in him last night. The same Rachel Maddow who'd only recently laid out in numbing detail - all the great things that have happened on his watch. That Rachel Maddow was in disbelief that our President seems almost ignorant of the struggles of the little folks as tea party marionettes dingle-dangle their way to the goals of their super-wealthy masters. And we're almost there - to those goals. We're almost to us equalling the Chinese in freedoms and voice. Is it TOO LATE to reverse things? Money - especially when it's concentrated in the hands of merciless, wanna-be Monarchs - is a weapon more powerful than firearms.