News
Student Judiciary creates panel to review fund case
JAKE NAUGHTON/Herald photo
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Carolyn Potts:
- Donors to pay dean's salary (December 5, 2008)
- Being Buddhist in a bustling world (December 3, 2008)
- Faculty weighs in on role of student push in voting (October 30, 2008)
- Biddy celebrates UW's future (October 24, 2008)
- Hoffman: Israel is on the watch (October 23, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The Associated Students of Madison’s Student Judiciary decided Sunday to create a panel to review an appeal from a student group denied funding by the Student Services Finance Committee last summer.
SJ discussed further action on two funding appeal cases, from the Roman Catholic Foundation of the University of Wisconsin and the Jewish Cultural Collective.
At the time of the meeting, Chief Justice Sol Grosskopf had not received word regarding the appeal from the JCC, putting the case past the time allowed for by the statute of limitations.
Discussion then moved to RCF, which sued UW after it withheld $39,000 from the organization for budget items the university says were to be used in prayer and worship.
In a preliminary hearing, U.S. District Court Judge John Shabaz, who will preside over a June trial between RCF and UW, ruled UW must fully fund RCF until the trial.
“The second case, RCF v. SSFC, we deliberated more heavily, [and it] was regarding their eligibility in regards to a new injunctive ruling from Judge Shabaz,” Chief Justice Sol Grosskopf said.
During an open forum, two members of the RCF argued the ruling means SJ must hear RCF’s case again.
“In the debate at the last meeting … there was a question raised as to whether or not this court decision that recently happened is new law,” RCF Chair Beth Czarnecki said. “It is [new law], which means that SSFC and SJ are bounded by the decision.”
Czarnecki also addressed in open forum what a delay in the hearing of the case by SJ would mean for the foundation next year.
“There was talk of possibly delaying our hearing until after the trial in June just to see how things settle out,” Czarnecki said. “To delay the hearing would violate our due process rights, and it would allow SJ to reject our eligibility application. Also, delaying the case would hurt us because we would miss the deadline of applying for funding for next school year.”
SJ is now setting up a panel of justices to hear the case. That panel will send notice to both SSFC and RCF on when a new hearing will take place.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
I guess SJ just kind of does whatever it wants. How about looking at the bylaws to see what you have authority over?
RCF LET IT GO! Seriously we all know that you use student money for prayer programs and bias discussions. The only reason why you got money in the first place was because Brad Vogel helped you both at the table and in your organization. You ARE NOT eligible for the money and I am not saying this because I am not a Catholic because I am! Maybe if you stopped suing UW and put your money and effort into fundraising and finding other sources and stop wasting students’ money!
“In the debate at the last meeting … there was a question raised as to whether or not this court decision that recently happened is new law,” RCF Chair Beth Czarnecki said. “It is [new law], which means that SSFC and SJ are bounded by the decision.”
Judicial decisions can’t be new law, because it’s congress that makes “New Law”
Wrong. The judiciary makes common law, by interpreting a specific set of circumstances with respect to the laws on the books (which can’t possibly cover everything) and coming up with a ruling that sets precedent. It can then be changed or modified by statutory law which is enacted by the legislature. Part of the system of checks and balances.