3 ms·

> It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point

> It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. Actually, it is the role of the judiciary to determine if the legislature has overstepped the bounds of the authority granted to it by Congress, by providing public labor unions with a degree of special authority granted to no other entity. And, as explained elsewhere in this thread by an actual lawyer, there's a pretty solid case that it has.

sykh 8y ago
It’s not the role of the Supreme Court to be the legislature. The suggestion that Janus’ free speech rights are being impinged upon are ridiculous. It’s not a solid case. It’s not even spurious reasoning. It’s absurd to think that Janus' free speech is being impinged. You can find lawyers who think Brown v Board of Edication was terrible. You can find lawyers who think Obama was not born in the U.S. It’s the argument that matters. Appealing to what one lawyer says is not such a great foundation. It’s clear the Supreme Court is going to overstep it’s mandate and legislate. They are going to throw out well established case law in favor a flimsy free speech argument. I believe fair share rules apply to all unions in states that don’t have right to work. I’m not sure on this though.
- mmt 8y ago
  > are ridiculous > It’s absurd This isn't the first time you've used words that insult the intellect of someone who holds an opinion you merely disagree with. You fail to address the specific points that others have made, instead choosing to tar their whole argument as "ridiculous" and "absurd". If it were either of those things, you wouldn't have to say so. It doesn't further the conversation and strikes me as little more than a re-iteration of previous assertions.

sykh 8y ago

It’s not the role of the Supreme Court to be the legislature. The suggestion that Janus’ free speech rights are being impinged upon are ridiculous. It’s not a solid case. It’s not even spurious reasoning. It’s absurd to think that Janus' free speech is being impinged. You can find lawyers who think Brown v Board of Edication was terrible. You can find lawyers who think Obama was not born in the U.S. It’s the argument that matters. Appealing to what one lawyer says is not such a great foundation. It’s clear the Supreme Court is going to overstep it’s mandate and legislate. They are going to throw out well established case law in favor a flimsy free speech argument. I believe fair share rules apply to all unions in states that don’t have right to work. I’m not sure on this though.

mmt 8y ago
> are ridiculous > It’s absurd This isn't the first time you've used words that insult the intellect of someone who holds an opinion you merely disagree with. You fail to address the specific points that others have made, instead choosing to tar their whole argument as "ridiculous" and "absurd". If it were either of those things, you wouldn't have to say so. It doesn't further the conversation and strikes me as little more than a re-iteration of previous assertions.