8 ms·

+1 The supreme court is not a legislative body. It's fun when your side wins, but that's essentially the same as hoping for a benevolent dictator. The most im

+1 The supreme court is not a legislative body. It's fun when your side wins, but that's essentially the same as hoping for a benevolent dictator. The most important SCOTUS cases are constitutional ones limiting the legislative branch, not becoming a second legislature.

sykh 8y ago
Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.
- dantheman 8y ago
  The Janus ruling will be about whether public sector unions can force government employees to pays dues to their union. If you believe this is compelled speech, it doesn't matter if there are decades of laws -- they are invalid. There's decades of laws that made interracial marriage illegal (Loving v. Virginia), and the supreme court overruled them too. If the constitution forbids a government action then it's up to the supreme court to overrule it.
  - sykh 8y ago
    Yes, there are instances of decades of legal precedent being overturned. In the case of Janus though I think it's a bit different. For one, I think the argument that being forced to pay fair share dues constitutes compelled speech is not even specious. It's, on it's face, wrong in my opinion. So Janus appears from my perspective to be more on the legislative side. This is especially so given that Gorsuch in the ruling that the thread is nominally about said that it's up to the legislature to change things.
- rayiner 8y ago
  If the Supreme Court overrules Abood in Janus, that'll be the Court doing its job to invalidate statutes that infringing Constitutional protections. Here, where there was no Constitutional concern, the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).
  - sykh 8y ago
    It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. It's not a free speech issue even though it has been popularly cropped as such. People who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it. I'm not a lawyer and you'll be able to cite a thousand cases to my one. My sister's neighbor is on the state Supreme Court where I live. He's said to me that a good lawyer can argue any case and cite a bunch of reasons to support his/her case. For me the case is simple. The collectively bargained rules apply to everyone in the workplace. As such those who benefit from said bargaining ought to pay for it. This has been an established practice for many, many years. Each state has the right to negate this and many have enacted misnamed right to work laws. There is no compelling reason to change the current practice. Janus' speech is not currently threatened and the greater public interest should be the one that prevails. It won't though.
    - mmt 8y ago
      > It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this is about the government and government employees everywhere you look. I never understood how we as a society and how the labor union movement could tolerate the existence of public employee unions in the first place, as they end up intermingling two otherwise very distinct worlds, as I believe has happened here. What you call "collective bargaining" in this case I could call "pure political pressure", since the "bargaining" is against politicians. That sounds awfully Constitution-ey to me.
      - sykh 8y ago
        Government is an employer. With the exception of the military employees have a right to unionize subject to certain constraints. Why distinguish between public vs. private? Why shouldn’t a union be political? Don’t workers have a right to gather in a group and be political? Government workers should be excluded from this activity? Janus is not really about free speech. It’s an attempt to destroy unions by letting people benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it. It’s called the free rider problem.
- koolba 8y ago
  Not GP but I sure will be. For the curious see [1] and [2] for more info about this case. Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. It's the ultimate slush fund feedback loop and unless it's reigned in the rest of the tax base ends up holding the bag (or municipal bankruptcy!). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v_AFSCME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v_AFSCME [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision-janus-v-afscme-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - spaginal 8y ago
    Couldn’t agree more.
  - sykh 8y ago
    Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded? My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union. It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation. Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good? I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.

sykh 8y ago

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

dantheman 8y ago
The Janus ruling will be about whether public sector unions can force government employees to pays dues to their union. If you believe this is compelled speech, it doesn't matter if there are decades of laws -- they are invalid. There's decades of laws that made interracial marriage illegal (Loving v. Virginia), and the supreme court overruled them too. If the constitution forbids a government action then it's up to the supreme court to overrule it.
- sykh 8y ago
  Yes, there are instances of decades of legal precedent being overturned. In the case of Janus though I think it's a bit different. For one, I think the argument that being forced to pay fair share dues constitutes compelled speech is not even specious. It's, on it's face, wrong in my opinion. So Janus appears from my perspective to be more on the legislative side. This is especially so given that Gorsuch in the ruling that the thread is nominally about said that it's up to the legislature to change things.
rayiner 8y ago
If the Supreme Court overrules Abood in Janus, that'll be the Court doing its job to invalidate statutes that infringing Constitutional protections. Here, where there was no Constitutional concern, the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).
- sykh 8y ago
  It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. It's not a free speech issue even though it has been popularly cropped as such. People who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it. I'm not a lawyer and you'll be able to cite a thousand cases to my one. My sister's neighbor is on the state Supreme Court where I live. He's said to me that a good lawyer can argue any case and cite a bunch of reasons to support his/her case. For me the case is simple. The collectively bargained rules apply to everyone in the workplace. As such those who benefit from said bargaining ought to pay for it. This has been an established practice for many, many years. Each state has the right to negate this and many have enacted misnamed right to work laws. There is no compelling reason to change the current practice. Janus' speech is not currently threatened and the greater public interest should be the one that prevails. It won't though.
  - mmt 8y ago
    > It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this is about the government and government employees everywhere you look. I never understood how we as a society and how the labor union movement could tolerate the existence of public employee unions in the first place, as they end up intermingling two otherwise very distinct worlds, as I believe has happened here. What you call "collective bargaining" in this case I could call "pure political pressure", since the "bargaining" is against politicians. That sounds awfully Constitution-ey to me.
    - sykh 8y ago
      Government is an employer. With the exception of the military employees have a right to unionize subject to certain constraints. Why distinguish between public vs. private? Why shouldn’t a union be political? Don’t workers have a right to gather in a group and be political? Government workers should be excluded from this activity? Janus is not really about free speech. It’s an attempt to destroy unions by letting people benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it. It’s called the free rider problem.
koolba 8y ago
Not GP but I sure will be. For the curious see [1] and [2] for more info about this case. Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. It's the ultimate slush fund feedback loop and unless it's reigned in the rest of the tax base ends up holding the bag (or municipal bankruptcy!). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v_AFSCME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v_AFSCME [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision-janus-v-afscme-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- spaginal 8y ago
  Couldn’t agree more.
- sykh 8y ago
  Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded? My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union. It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation. Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good? I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.