Skip to comments.Outgoing Democratic NLRB chairwoman: Conservatives attacking Board with ‘baseball bat’
Posted on 08/30/2011 12:59:01 PM PDT by Nachum
Outgoing National Labor Relations Board chairwoman Wilma Liebman thinks critics of the NLRBs recent policies have blown their complaints grossly out of proportion to what has happened and what has been done.
We knew we were going to have a boxing match, but we didnt expect our opponents to come in with a baseball bat, Liebman, a Democrat, told The New York Times.
The NLRB has come under fire during President Obamas administration for favoring unions. The Board has traditionally swung with political tides, but critics say this time around its different. The NLRB has plowed forward with unprecedented cases, like the one against The Boeing Company for opening a new plant in South Carolina, and pushed new pro-union regulations like the quickie elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
That truly is a crying shame. We need to come in with chainsaws instead.
>The perception of this agency as doing radical things is mystifying to me, Liebman continued. <<
Just shows you how clueless and arrogant this twit is..
If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it probably is too good to be true.
Wilma Liebman. Whining loser of the year. Go back to your Commie buddies.
That’s my opinion. We should not be bringing a baseball bat to a chainsaw fight.
It’s all union.
They understand baseball bats.
A standard tactic for such radicals. They create policies that are totally beyond their authority, and are highly unconstitutional and intrusive, harming lots of people and businesses. And then, when they are called out on it, whine that it is their opponents who are radical and extreme for opposing them.
Think about it, wacko leftists calling conservatives “extremists” for opposing radical change. Turning the definition of the word on its head.
they are trying to force card check and we all saw what they are doing to the Boeing factory
Take no chances - nuc ‘em from space.
I don’t know about a baseball bat, but somebody definitely hit her with an ugly stick.
Another good find. I am stealing this. Put it up on the website, and just on Twitter. :)
Didn’t YOUR president tell you to bring a gun?
We knew we were going to have a boxing match, but we didnt expect our opponents to come in with a baseball bat,
Well boo frickety hoo!
Why not? It’s the Chicago way...
Looks more like an “Ugly Stick” than a baseball bat.
It’s the only way to be sure...
Twenty-five years ago, this Board served as a mediating force between battling union locals, internationals or district committees and employers and employer associations. It found a middle line and was feared and respected by both sides.
Since the Clinton era, that position of legitimate mediation has been totally lost by “activism” and taking sides to promote a unionism agenda.
This will help kill unions as employers will be convinced that they have no impartial appeal boards or assistance available and therefore will do all that they can to not become signatory firms.
Like the risk of exposure to “unfunded pension or healthcare fund liability” this will drive another nail in the coffin of “organized” labor.
And i wasnt invited? I got a baseball bat.
I’m not very good with chainsaws...and I would never behead a Union Thug attacker. Too up close and messy. :)
Dear Dumb**s Wilma :
We are all ust reacting to the following...
Obama on tour: I make no apologies for being reasonable
They Bring a Knife We Bring a Gun
Obama to His Followers:
Get in Their Faces!
Obama on ACORN Mobs:
I dont want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! Im angry!
Obama to His Mercenary Army:
Hit Back Twice As Hard
Obama on the private sector:
We talk to these folks so I know whose ass to kick.
Obama to voters:
Republican victory would mean hand to hand combat
Obama to lib supporters:
Its time to Fight for it.
Obama to Latino supporters:
Punish your enemies.
Obama to democrats:
Im itching for a fight.
Obama to his "people":
Our Time has Come!
Make sure you are fit to fight before starting one.
Can we agree that it's a Communist's wet dream to GET on the NLRB?
How about becoming the HEAD of the NLRB?
This is a mind blower.
The NLRB should be abolished. Up until a Marxist took the reigns of the country, they did nothing. Now see what they are up to after being activated. Total Communism. They need to go and I think there is enough support for that with this Boeing debacle.
Republicans finally getting assertive. Will wonders never cease.
The Commie union bosses can keep playing their games in court with their flying monkey lawyers, but the red sons of bitches are going to get what they deserve real soon.
That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.
As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.
No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.
If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.
Criminalize Government employee unions, blatantly illegal mechanisms for raping taxpayers by bribing leftist politicians with money and votes in exchange for unsustainable compensation and benefits.
Theres nothing patently illegal about a POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision
Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of the new GOP Administration.
Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437
UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399.
Argued March 29, 1965.
Decided June 7, 1965.
Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.
(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.
(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.
(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.
(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.
(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, shorthand expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.
(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.
(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.
334 F.2d 488, affirmed.
Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.
Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a unions access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the unions officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]
Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremens and Warehousemens Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504. It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .
Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]
Wilma is another stupid, traitorous bitch who needs to be hanged. These left-wing whores think they’ll skate home and bear no consequences for their treachery, treason and thievery.
I have no qualms in hanging female nazis and commies from the nearest lamppost. These female monsters destroyed the lives of millions of Americans.