[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: SCOTUS ruling on Janus is about to change the American political landscape [involuntary union dues] Justice Alito wrote the decision and it followed along with the expectations of those who watched the case play out before the court. Also as expected, this was a 5-4 decision, split along partisan lines. At the heart of Janus was the question of whether or not unions can forcibly extract dues from workers’ paychecks without the worker proactively volunteering to contribute. In parallel to that, the court had to determine whether or not those extracted fees, being put toward lobbying efforts, constituted involuntary political speech on the part of the worker. The ruling answers both questions definitively. You can read the full decision here but I’ve extracted a couple of the key points from the syllabus. First is the issue of whether the previous ruling in Abood (which went in the unions’ favor) erred in allowing the forcible extraction of dues. Alito leaves no room for doubt. The second question was the one about subsidizing the speech of others when it runs contrary to your personal beliefs. Again, Alito is definitive. A union official, Paul Shearon, the IFPTE Secretary-Treasurer, put out an immediate statement saying that this was based on, “a bogus free speech argument.” He went on to say that the justices voting in the majority “are little better than political hacks.” That was followed up by a threat to take it to the streets. This is going to send shockwaves through not just the unions, but the Democratic Party at large. The amount of money that the unions flush into Democratic coffers every year is likely more than most of you imagine. This was a point being driven home in advance of the decision by Hugh Hewitt this morning. He was reminding everyone precisely what this decision was going to mean to the unions if it went against them. — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) June 27, 2018 — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) June 27, 2018 Liberals have been bracing for this result for a while now. Back in February, the WaPo seemed to see the writing on the wall here and tried suggesting a “compromise” where the unions could collect a smaller amount of money for a more “focused purpose.” This is a silly suggestion, of course, since money is fungible. Even if the collected dues are narrowly applied to a different purpose, that simply frees up funds to be moved over to political activism. (Which is the majority of the business the unions engage in to begin with.) Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed. (Of course, it’s primarily just a fiscal crisis for the unions.) How serious that crisis becomes won’t be known for some time. But the important point is that a new precedent has been set and workers are still free to join unions or make voluntary, proactive payments to them if they feel it’s a worthy cause. But the unions will no longer be able to reach into their pockets without permission. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25. Great news! Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed. (Of course, it’s primarily just a fiscal crisis for the unions.) Exactly. But as is their wont, Democrat-Communist "predictions" are just thinly veiled mob-action threats, anarchy, and targeting Constitutionalists, capitalists, and American nationalists. How serious that crisis becomes won’t be known for some time. I believe the "crisis" will manifest itself in the usual "Resistance"/SEIU manner of threats, extortion, blackmail, assaults, and...murder. All justified and encouraged by the usual suspects -- Leftist MSM, TV Puppets, and organized Social/Communitah Media.
#7. To: Liberator (#6) (Edited)
#11. To: Tooconservative (#7) (Edited) ...One of [Trump's] trademark nanny-nanny-boo-boo wisecracks from the cheap seats. HEH... True. It's almost as though Trump...is one of us :-) But let's face it -- 0bama started this "nanny-nanny-boo-hoo" war of tweaking the other side. Yes, 0bama obviously did it, only in his own smug, smarmy, smirking "FU YOU, CONSERVATIVES!" way. And who can forget his arrogant "mic-drop" on a talk show as he tried to punk Trump, "At least I'm President -- something you'll never be".? When Trump engages in HIS one-upsmanship against what is a massive army of Leftists, its as a frontal assault. He really weaponizes Twitter like a nuke. Hard not to appreciate the Schadenfreude Factor as smashes the Left (and 0bama indirectly) in its maw. They aren't used to losing at all or getting pwned. Hence the tantrums.
#16. To: Liberator (#11) El Donaldo was really on a roll today.
See, that no-goodnik should have been nicer and more respectful to his
#24. To: Tooconservative (#16) Just remember, he was replaced by a Socialist Sanders loving diaperhead bimbo... who wants to be treated like a dude but will go crazy if you punch her like a dude. I seriously doubt it was because of Crowley’s hate for Trump...this sand potato hates trump even more.
#25. To: GrandIsland (#24) I seriously doubt it was because of Crowley’s hate for Trump...this sand potato hates trump even more. Yah, Trump was just trolling them with that crack. He probably laughed about it with Roger Stone. Trump knows they think he's an idiot. So he's yucking it up on Twitter, inviting them to underestimate him.
Replies to Comment # 25. There are no replies to Comment # 25.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 25. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||||||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|