Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Voids Part of Family Leave Act
Crooks and Liars ^
| March 22, 2012
| Nicole Belle
Posted on 03/22/2012 8:24:37 AM PDT by Beaten Valve
State workers who are denied unpaid sick leave required by federal law cannot sue the states, the Supreme Court said in a victory for states' rights that some liberal advocates saw as a bad omen for President Obama's healthcare law.
The 5-4 decision is a setback for millions of employees of state agencies and state colleges, and it voided in part a provision in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Among other things the act said that employees had a right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to recover from an illness or childbirth.
The rights of employees of private companies are unchanged by the ruling.
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: familyleave; obamacare
To: Beaten Valve
drip..drip..drip..OBozo's (DEATH)CARE.
2
posted on
03/22/2012 8:36:53 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Simple: Kill the terrorists, Protect (all) the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
To: Beaten Valve
this is a victory for non-union American workers and the U.S. economy, as it removes a huge impediment to companies offering jobs here.
3
posted on
03/22/2012 8:53:11 AM PDT
by
montag813
To: montag813
this is a victory for non-union American workers and the U.S. economy, as it removes a huge impediment to companies offering jobs here. Actually, the ruling only affects employees of state governments, not private companies.
To: montag813
...it removes a huge impediment to companies offering jobs here.
______________
Not really. This was more of a State sovereignty issue and doesn't apply to the requirements on private companies.
5
posted on
03/22/2012 8:57:45 AM PDT
by
lp boonie
(Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment)
To: Beaten Valve
The 5-4 decision is a setback for millions of employees of state agencies and state colleges And a victory for the poor slobs who have to pay the bill for a bunch of slackers.
6
posted on
03/22/2012 9:01:50 AM PDT
by
IronJack
(=)
To: montag813
this is a victory for non-union American workers and the U.S. economy, as it removes a huge impediment to companies offering jobs here.
Actually it does none of that. Only says that the Federal Government can't force stated to go along with FMLA for their own employees due to states rights. Private employers still have to eat the crap sandwich.
To: Beaten Valve
This is BS. How can the States have more rights than the people?
8
posted on
03/22/2012 9:21:14 AM PDT
by
CodeToad
(I'm so right-wing if I lifted my left leg I'd go into a spin.)
To: CodeToad
This is BS. How can the States have more rights than the people? I haven't read the decision yet, but I assume it relies on the 11th Amendment, which says that states cannot be sued in federal court.
To: Beaten Valve
Ruh-Roh
Union Members pile up the over-time while co-workers regularly take "Family Leave", and then it's THEIR turn.
This should be fought by the SEIU, AFSCM, etc., as their "CONTRACT" says they have "RIGHTS".
10
posted on
03/22/2012 10:12:18 AM PDT
by
traditional1
(Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
To: Lurking Libertarian
“I haven’t read the decision yet, but I assume it relies on the 11th Amendment, which says that states cannot be sued in federal court.”
No, it doesn’t. That’s what it’s been interpreted to mean, though it actually says that citizens of one state can’t sue another state. SCOTUS has unaccountably extended that to mean citizens can’t sue their own states. Or at least not in some cases. Just like with Obamacare, there are all sorts of exceptions. For instance, you can sue states in federal court for violating your civil rights. Especially if you are a member of a protected race/sex/orientation group.
To: CodeToad
“This is BS. How can the States have more rights than the people?”
By selectively favoring the “states” part and xing out the “people” part of the 10th amendment.
To: Beaten Valve; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESFReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
13
posted on
03/22/2012 10:29:37 AM PDT
by
BuckeyeTexan
(Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
To: Beaten Valve
To: Tublecane
There's a long standing precedent that holds states are immune from Federal labor laws on the basis of Federalism-- the states cannot be directly coerced by the Federal government, otherwise it makes the states agents of the Federal government.
What's interesting is that 4 justices wanted to overturn that precedent.
15
posted on
03/22/2012 1:28:54 PM PDT
by
pierrem15
(Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
To: skinkinthegrass
If Obama serves another term, these 5-4 decisions will start going their way.
16
posted on
03/22/2012 3:53:50 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: kabar
not necessarily; IF he gets re-elected...
he won't need the congress or the courts.
*Nazi salute*
HEIL! OBAMA!
our historical freedoms shall be forfeit
from the Bill of USA Rights to the Laws of Chinese Rights..
You can work/vote for dear leader OBOZO; everything
else is severely restricted or forbidden.
17
posted on
03/23/2012 9:39:02 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Simple: Kill the terrorists, Protect (all) the borders, ridicule all the (surviving) Liberals :^)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson