The original intent of the Constitution was to ensure legal proceedings did not tie up a lawmaker, thereby denying the people representation. That’s not the case here. The legislative calendar contains plenty of gaps during which Vukmir could appear in court. Besides, in a case like this the lawyers would duke it out. Her physical presence would be unnecessary. Vukmir and Van Hollen suggest the session lasts all of Vukmir’s term, gaps or not. If she were re-elected, immunity could continue for another four years. The Center for Media and Democracy would be out of luck. If that’s right, lawmakers could avoid Wisconsin’s open government law. They alone would decide what the public gets to know. They could divulge the flattering and conceal the embarrassing, and the public would have no neutral judicial redress.
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:59:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015