The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[SCOTUS] Kavanaugh committee vote delayed, victim alleging attempted rape steps forward
So It Goes
We keep moving...Registered User regular
We keep moving...Registered User regular
As previously noted:
Expectations for this thread
1. This is not the general politics or lol this party sucks thread.
2. This is a thread about the US Supreme Court, if it doesn't have anything to do with SCOTUS, it doesn't belong here.
3. Not all things about SCOTUS belong here. Some cases dealing with certain issues, already have a thread or their own god damn separate thread that is more appropriate to discuss a certain SCOTUS rulings or cases.
4. In the event that a tangent regarding something involving SCOTUS has it's own thread created after the discussion starts in this thread, then move the discussion over to the new thread. (Also appreciated if people link to the new thread to help others out).
5. In the event that we get a SCOTUS vacancy in the lifetime of this thread, this would probably be the best place to discuss such an appointment given how low traffic this thread is likely to be. (leaving this for posterity and lols - SIG)
Read SCOTUSBlog for all the latest and greatest info you could ever need about our highest court: http://www.scotusblog.com/
Let's keep it on topic, folks.
/bangs gavel
So It Goes on
+12
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
The excuse makes me think of Oyama v. California, a case about a discriminatory land law. Murphy and Rutledge didn't pretend that wasn't really racist despite not mentioning the Japanese by name in freaking 1948. Roberts would probably look at that and say, "well, it included some Hindus and Chinese besides the Japanese and just the Japanese who weren't American citizens or had parents who weren't citizens so obviously it isn't discriminatory."
If RBG dies, they'll overturn VRA in its entirety.
Oh, the same as it would have ever been. He is firm in his conviction that he is much cleverer than anyone else and therefore assured of his rectitude.
He probably thinks he’s a genius and a saint for having the gall to overturn korematsu by dicta to preempt the dissent and cast the majority opinion as the objective computer analysis of a mathematical case with no messy edges
NNID: Hakkekage
Also ignore the previous versions of this executive order which more clearly revealed its bigotry
Apparently Roberts got angry at Sotomayor while she was reading her dissent aloud from the bench when she got to the part that detailed point by point, on many points, how this ruling is identical to internment of Japanese Americans.
Nina Totenberg is NPR's Legal Affairs Correspondent
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
How uncivil of her to expose his artifice
NNID: Hakkekage
John Lewis is a congressman, last living leader of the civil rights movement, and the most admirable man in America since at least Fred Rogers' death.
NNID: Hakkekage
i am 100% pro-union but i have to be honest, i don't understand the mechanism by which it is legal to charge non-members
like, i understand the principle. they benefit from the union whether they join or not, i just don't really get how they can be forced to pay dues
also i'm not concern trolling or anything, i really just don't get the argument
The moral argument is that the union is legally required to negotiate contracts for, represent in grievances, the entire workplace—selective representation is against the law. So it’s fair to require the nonmembers to pay dues covering the mandatory operating costs they incur for the organization that’s forced to represent them. (Edit: so, basically what you say)
I’m not sure if the legal reason for why the union can collect dues is that interesting, I think it’s just that they’re currently authorized to by law. Janus will test whether that law stands up to scrutiny in the case of public sector workers. (It should, and almost certainly won’t, and it will decimate labor)
and, yeah, surely it won't stand under this court, especially with gorsuch there now
The non-union members are forced to pay for the stuff where the union represents them. The union is usually required by law to represent all the workers in that company or group even if they are not members. The money is not fungible like you might expect so there is no issue of it being used to free up money for political stuff.
Without having to pay for the representation, unions are literally legally forced to represent workers who are not members without getting the funding from them to represent them. Allowing them to charge nonmembers for services rendered is just a way to allow them to pay for the nonmembers they are forced to provide services to.
The point of right to work—and it has been very successful—is to create a collective action problem for workers, where benefiting from a union is separate from paying for it and the result is a public goods game with no enforcement mechanism where everyone subsequently defects.
Which is a particularly perverse legacy for a class of institution whose legal mandate was to protect workers rights to organization and mutual aid in overcoming collective action problems.
Also remember that the agency fees coming from the employee and not the employer is basically just an accounting foible. The Union negotiates to provide exclusive labor to the employer and in exchange for managing that takes a small portion of the cost that are paid to the labor. There isn't really a great reason why the labor pays that themselves instead of just directly to the Union. (There are some psychological reasons as it puts the Union more on Labors side.)
Circumventing the requirements for all dues effectively kills the union. At issue right now is the right for government employees to even have representation at all. It's not even the round about red state union murder by changing laws around collection of money.
It's literally, "are public sector employees indentured servants? y/n"
I'm really disappointed in the way the courts have been deciding almost explicitly along party lines and ideology without even attempting to be just. It feels repressive and wrong.
The argument against public service unions is one I never really got but something about them directly effecting elections through advocacy makes them different? Which seems like a really myopic view of just what any company that ever submits a bid to the government does with congressfolk.
Edit: Also note they never ever say this about the group of folks we invest with the legal power to shoot someone if they feel slightly uncomfortable. Funny that. You'd think that'd be a much bigger distortion of the negotiation process than them supporting your opponent in an election.
The law is full of contradictions. I doubt distinguishing taxes from union dues will vex the court.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Unions can be forced to represent people and that isn't some free speech restriction.
[ed]
We're all shocked I'm sure on both counts. This court seemed to care so much about the law and precedent and especially unions before now.
I think the police and fire department unions are whistiling in the dark if they don't think this animosity towards unions won't come for them in the end. This decision would just be another step down that road and once the teacher and other public unions get wrecked there is not going to be anybody left willing to stand with the police to keep theirs.
Edit: I don't know of any other time in my life that the barrage of cases that were ruled on in favor of freedom and protection in lower courts were just fucking mangled into regressive harmful precedent.
"We've been working at this for a very long time and we finally think we can get away with it."
Because that's not the argument, and because a membership is not the same as a fee for services you don't want to consume and because taxes are constitutionally allowed.
The argument is that you shouldn't be able to elect the person you're responsible for entering into an adversarial negotiation with. Also, that you shouldn't be forced to support the political aspirations of a group to which you do not belong, simply because it was able to convince the legislature it helped elect to pass a law forcing you to do so. Obviously I don't find arguments that money is not fungible in this special case, or that there are no workplace consequences for refusing to help elect someone, compelling in the slightest. Public sector unions shouldn't be a thing at all, including the police and fire dept unions, probably the best example of a union's ability to exert political will to help elect someone who will then hold the official hostage in future negotiations (including disciplinary action).
We've hashed this out a few times and I'm trying to confine myself to this specific case, but I think the only way the union can be Constitutional is if they stand up an entirely separate legal entity that receives no financial transfer from the union itself, and must solicit donations directly from its members (rather than using any kind of payroll mechanism to do so). Even then, I am giving them the hugest side-eye in history because every politician knows what's up in these cases.
Edit: well it came down while I was writing this. Time for some reading...
Costing your employer money is not speech!
Now stop squeaking about grease, and go freeze to death in a truck like a good little cog.
On first glance, I'm guessing this only applies to public sector unions.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Except that Janus does want to consume the service of an employment contract. He just doesn't want to have to pay for it.
Correct. Private sector unions are not covered by 1A, but...still not good.