Author Topic: New Job Union ruling  (Read 1151 times)

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
New Job Union ruling
« on: June 27, 2018, 07:46:25 am »
Wednesday, June 27th 2018

U.S. Supreme Court rules against unions over non-member fees

by Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source.

On a 5-4 vote powered by the court's conservative majority, the justices overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed the so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.

The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers who pay these fees will no longer have to do so.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay agency fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The ruling deprives unions of a vital revenue stream, undercut their ability to attract new members and undermine their ability to spend in political races.






Would You Like To Know More?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-against-unions-over-non-member-fees/ar-AAzeUTn?ocid=spartandhp

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2018, 06:56:19 am »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2018, 08:16:12 pm »
"Ah... ah... AH...! No, you don't, muh fukka!"
Monday, 15th October 2018
SCOTT 'Nosferatu the Vampyre' BLOCKED!
by Tierney Sneed


Remember This Guy From The White House Correspondents Dinner?



The Florida state Supreme Court said Monday that Gov. Rick Scott (Racist) will not be allowed to appoint three new justices to the court on the morning he steps down as governor, after voting rights groups sued him over his plans to replace the three judges whose terms will come to an end at midnight before Scott’s successor is sworn in.

“The governor who is elected in the November 2018 general election has the sole authority to fill the vacancies that will be created by the mandatory retirement of Justices Barbara J. Pariente, R. Fred Lewis, and Peggy A. Quince,” the state Supreme Court said,

“provided the justices do not leave prior to the expiration of their terms at midnight between January 7 and January 8, 2019, and provided that the governor takes office immediately upon the beginning of his term.”

The retiring justices, who are stepping down due to mandatory age limits, are all left-leaning, according to Slate.

In attempting a power grab that would have let him lock in a right-leaning majority for years regardless the winner of the 2018 governor’s race, Scott was trying to exploit a loophole in that their terms expired at midnight, January 8, but his successor wouldn’t be sworn in until that day, usually at around noon.

“I will appoint three more justices on the morning I finish my term,” Scott said last year.

Those plans attracted a lawsuit from the Florida League of Women Voters and Common Cause, which said that Scott’s attempts to “make appointments to shape the judiciary on his way out of office would run directly contrary to the core principle of this State that political power is inherent in the people.”

Scott is currently running for the U.S. Senate.

The race to replace him — between Democratic Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum and Republican U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis — is close, according to polls.











Would You Like To Know More?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/state-high-court-blocks-rick-scotts-planned-court-packing-power-grab
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 10:25:25 pm by Battle »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2018, 07:43:18 am »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2018, 03:25:01 am »
Sunday, 11th November 2018
Special Session Canceled After Good-For-Nothing West Virginia Justice Resigns
by Associated Press


CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — The resignation of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice recently convicted of federal charges prompted the governor Sunday to cancel a special legislative session that was to consider the justice's removal.

It was the latest development in an impeachment scandal miring some past and present justices in varying accusations including abuse of authority and failure to rein in excessive spending that engulfed the state's highest court for months.

Republican Gov. Jim Juestice's office said late Saturday he received a letter from Justice Allen Loughry and accepted his resignation effective at the close of business Monday.

Justice had no further comment and Loughry's one-sentence resignation letter didn't elaborate.

Loughry was convicted last month of federal criminal charges including wire fraud involving his personal use of state cars and fuel cards and mail fraud. He has requested a new trial.

Last week Justice had called the special session for Tuesday, saying in a proclamation that it would consider removing Loughry from his post.
 
Another proclamation Sunday canceled the special session in light of Loughry's resignation.

Loughry couldn't be reached for comment. His attorney, John A. Carr, said in an email he would have no comment.
Loughry and three other justices were impeached by the West Virginia House in August over questions involving lavish office renovations that evolved into varying accusations of corruption, incompetence and neglect of duty.

One of them, Justice Beth Walker, was cleared of an impeachment charge at a Senate trial last month.

The West Virginia Supreme Court last month effectively halted the Legislature's remaining efforts to impeach the state's justices as a violation of the separate of power doctrine.

The court ruled that the Senate lacks jurisdiction to pursue its impeachment trial of Justice Margaret Workman.

The Senate had postponed Workman's trial after the presiding judge didn't show up following the court ruling.

A panel of acting justices said the court's decision to stop Workman's impeachment hearing also applies to retired Justice Robin Davis and Loughry, who had petitioned the court to intervene.

Senate President Mitch Carmichael, a Republican, lauded the resignation announcement Saturday.

"We appreciate that Justice Loughry has decided to do the right thing and step down from the Court," Carmichael said in a statement.

Judicial elections in West Virginia became nonpartisan in 2016, but the court's impeachment scandal this year stirred political attacks.

Some Democrats argued that the court's shakeup over spending and other issues was a power grab by the Republican-led legislature.

On Election Day, two state Supreme Court justices appointed to the court after the scandal broke won election to continue on the bench: Former House speaker Tim Armstead and ex-Congressman Evan Jenkins won those races Tuesday night, each defeating nine other candidates.

They had originally been appointed by Justice to fill two of the seats on the state's highest court pending the midterm election.

Armstead will complete the term of Justice Menis Ketchum, who announced his resignation on the eve of the House's impeachment proceedings.

The term runs through 2020.

Jenkins will serve until 2024, when the term of retired Justice Robin Davis ends.

Davis also was impeached.



Would You Like To Know More?
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-11-11/convicted-west-virginia-supreme-court-justice-stepping-down


Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2018, 01:31:36 pm »
Monday, 10th December 2018
Supreme Court Ducks Effort To Defund Planned Parenthood
by Nina Totenberg & Domenico Montanaro
NPR's William Conlon and Sarah McCammon contributed to this report.


The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a case brought by Republican-led states that were seeking to defund Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide women's reproductive health services.

The case does not involve federal money for abortion-related services. That is barred by federal law.

Rather, it involves an effort by two states to block Medicaid funding for some abortion providers that, like Planned Parenthood, get Medicaid funding for providing other services to low-income women, services like cancer screenings, prenatal services, birth control and ultrasounds.


Wait'll you read who dissented.


Would You like To Know More?
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/675260800/supreme-court-declines-key-planned-parenthood-case

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2019, 04:38:47 pm »
Tuesday, 22nd December 2019

Judge declares Iowa fetal heartbeat law unconstitutional
by Associated Press

(DES MOINES, Iowa) — A state judge has struck down Iowa's restrictive "fetal heartbeat" abortion law.

Judge Michael Huppert on Tuesday found the law unconstitutional.

He concluded that the Iowa Supreme Court's earlier decisions that affirm a woman's fundamental right to an abortion would include the new law passed last year.


The law would ban once a fetal heartbeat is detected.


That can happen as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

It would have been the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation.

But the legal challenge by abortion providers Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the Emma Goldman Clinic had halted it from taking effect last July.

Supporters of the law are likely to ask the Iowa Supreme Court to hear an appeal of Huppert's ruling

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9021
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: New Job Union ruling
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2019, 06:30:58 am »
Monday, 15th October 2019
Please note: this article was published last year before the mid-term elections, however, still relevant today. 
Congress and the president have historically reined in the justices when they’ve gone against public opinion.
by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux




Now that he’s officially taken his seat on the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh has no obvious reason to care what you think.

Neither does Sonia Sotomayor, or Samuel Alito, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

They and their colleagues are justices for life, 1 which should in theory give them the freedom to write unpopular opinions.

But Supreme Court history shows that’s not always how it works.

In the past, the justices have appeared to bend to popular opinion, in addition to being reined in by other branches of government when they deviate dramatically from the mainstream.

That history has a lot to tell us about how much leeway the court’s new majority has when deciding future cases on issues where a conservative ruling might spark a backlash, like abortion.

These justices may have an unprecedented opportunity to shift an already conservative court even further to the right, but they’ll likely have to navigate more than just jurisprudence if they want their rulings to last.

The relationship between the court and the rest of us is well-studied by historians and political scientists.

And several studies do suggest that the justices respond to public opinion.

For example, Peter Enns, a political science professor at Cornell University, found that the court’s ideological tilt tracks with public opinion over time.

“We can’t get inside their minds and understand how they’re weighing the potential public reaction,” he said.

“But when the public’s perspective is more liberal, we consistently see more liberal Supreme Court decisions, and the reverse is true when the public mood is more conservative. It’s hard to believe that’s just a coincidence.”

It’s possible, of course, that the justices’ individual worldviews are simply influenced by the same forces that shape broader public opinion.

But history has shown that there are practical reasons for the court to avoid bucking mainstream sentiment.

In the past, Congress, the president and state governments have openly defied controversial Supreme Court rulings.

Congress can also regulate the types of cases the court is allowed to hear or dilute a recalcitrant majority by “packing” the court with ideologically sympathetic justices.

Proposals that take advantage of that power have been considered seriously only a handful of times, according to Tom Clark, who is a political scientist at Emory University and studies the limits of judicial independence.

But when they have, the court avoided formal retaliation — like being remade into a 15-member chamber — because the justices ultimately backed down.

Perhaps the most famous example of a Supreme Court brought to task by the other branches of government was in the 1930s, which also happened to be the last time the court was controlled by a strong conservative majority.

The country was in the depths of the Great Depression, and the Supreme Court was aggressively striking down President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s progressive economic legislation, which was widely popular at the time.

Finally, Roosevelt announced a plan to increase the size of the court by as many as six justices.

The scheme ultimately collapsed in Congress — and may have done some damage to Roosevelt’s popularity in the process — but not before one of the right-leaning justices suddenly began voting to uphold New Deal laws that were identical to ones he had voted to gut only a year earlier.

Barry Friedman, who is a professor at New York University Law School and studies legal history, said there’s a clear lesson from the 1937 court-packing episode.

“The court can’t get too far out of step with public opinion before something happens to rein them in,” he said.

And it wasn’t the first time Congress or the president had intervened when the court appeared to block a popular policy agenda.

During Republican-led Reconstruction, when three constitutional amendments were passed to end slavery, give legal equality to former slaves and prohibit racial discrimination at the polls, the GOP swept the 1866 congressional elections.
That gave them a veto-proof majority against President Abraham Lincoln’s Democratic successor, who wanted to allow Southern states to re-enter the union more easily than many Republicans were willing to countenance.

When the Supreme Court seemed likely to halt Reconstruction’s progress, Congress repeatedly changed the size of the court for political ends and revoked the court’s ability to review a case that could have threatened military rule in the South — a decision the court itself upheld.


Even in moments when the court has taken steps to shore up a controversial decision, a backlash has first delayed the enforcement of the ruling and eventually set the stage for the court to back down.


The landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which said that school segregation laws were unconstitutional, was decided unanimously with the explicit goal of lending additional legitimacy to the decision.


But it was still met by outrage and defiance from Southern state governors and a lukewarm response from President Dwight Eisenhower, who thought the court should pursue integration by subtler means.

And after years of striking down attempts to thwart desegregation — and amid a fierce national debate about the use of school busing to integrate schools — the court finally capitulated to the status quo when it ruled in 1974 that the Detroit public schools could remain functionally segregated.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote that the majority’s ruling was “more a reflection of a perceived public mood” that desegregation had gone far enough than “the product of neutral principle of law.”

These historical showdowns are uncommon, but Clark said that’s precisely because the Supreme Court justices are concerned about their own institutional legitimacy and aware of limitations on their power.

For a book published in 2010, Clark reviewed all of the bills introduced in Congress to curb the court starting in 1877 and found that the court seemed to respond through its opinions.

When Congress introduced more bills that would limit the court’s power, the court struck down fewer laws.

Clark sees the court-curbing bills — which almost never became law — as a way of sending a signal to the court. “These reactions allow the justices to learn if they’ve gone too far out of line,” he said.

Whether the current Supreme Court justices have internalized this view is another question.


Some research has concluded that the court’s historical “swing” justices are more likely to respond to strategic concerns like public opinion when casting pivotal votes.


If true, the addition of Kavanaugh could put even more pressure on the new median justice, Chief Justice John Roberts, who is already known for his concern about the court’s reputation, to moderate the court’s right wing.

He might even join the liberals in key cases, as retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s previous median justice, sometimes did.

Who controls Congress could have an impact on the conservative majority’s willingness to make a sharp right turn, too.

If Republicans retain control after this year’s midterm elections, the court would be largely safe from reprisal (although its institutional legitimacy could be even further damaged on the left).

But the stakes would change considerably if the Democrats take one or both houses of Congress in November.

Part of the problem is that no one — including the justices — knows exactly what “too conservative” means.

Over the past decade, the Roberts court has already issued a slew of right-leaning rulings without triggering widespread public outrage.

And even when a decision is unpopular, it can be difficult to predict what will spur Congress and the president to action and what won’t.

The 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited corporate spending on direct advocacy for and against political candidates, was broadly disliked when it came down, but the Democrats — who were in control of both Congress and the White House at the time — didn’t retaliate against the court.

The country’s deep ideological divisions may also help insulate the court, said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas.

“We’re so divided — it’s hard to think of many issues that an outright majority would get really angry about,” he said.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is one clear example of a ruling that could spark a legitimacy crisis, since polls have consistently found that a solid majority of Americans oppose such a move.



But it’s possible to significantly undermine abortion rights without overruling Roe explicitly, using what some legal experts have called the “death by a thousand cuts” approach.

These questions won’t be answered overnight.

So far, the Supreme Court’s term looks relatively sleepy, and it will take time for the engines of the conservative legal movement, now emboldened by Kavanaugh’s confirmation, to bring new, sweeping challenges to the court.
 

But the figure to watch for clues isn’t Kavanaugh — it’s Roberts, who will need to start figuring out what kind of conservative court he wants to lead.






Would You Like To Know More?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-can-stop-the-supreme-court/
« Last Edit: February 21, 2019, 09:51:55 am by Battle »