FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/29/2016 7:27:07 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The Supreme Court announced a tie vote today in what labor law experts had called a "life-or-death" case for public employee unions.
The split decision preserves a long-standing rule that requires about half of the nation's teachers, transit workers and other public employees to pay a "fair share fee" to support their union.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Cue the Scalia conspiracy theories.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Welcome to the USSA.
DC is a sick joke.
Better yet. Let’s learn a lesson from this. Congress needs to pass a law reducing the court to only eight members and make it MANDATORY that it has to be staffed with four commie libs and four normal people. This would take the political activism out of the court and make it more of a mediocre court rather than a SUPREME court. Works for me.
But SCOTUS is not constitutionally authorized to make national law is it? It can only decide individual cases and controversies which is the extent of its constitutional authority isn’t it?
How far we have fallen. Lord, bring a miracle to get back on track as a Free Constitutional Republic.
Note that this tie affirms the 9th Circuit decision but does not set a new precedent.
Or do we have to guess?
Lotta Tony Soprano-types out there relying on dues money to support their lifestyles. Just sayin’.
What good is the SC if all they are going to do is vote party lines?
They didn’t make law. They tied on a decision. That leaves the 9th Circuit decision in place. It doesn’t make mandatory union dues national law.
Forced contributions to the Democratic Party AOK.
Not even the LA Times could manage to say fair share fee without putting it in quotes.
Yup! The last thing the union thugs want to do is have to work for a living. They’ve created a terrific, big money gig for themselves. Stealing money from those people who have jobs and have to work for a living.
This is putting the responsibility back on the legislatures. Where it needs to be.
One sentence is all we get on this one because it was a tie. It was pretty clear during oral arguments that Roberts would vote with the other conservatives.
___________________________________________________
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
To those who did not vote for Romney in the last election, “thanks a pantload.” Your refusal to go with the lesser of two evils gave us the greater of two evils. Lovely. And the stakes will be even higher in this election. It’s existential, people. We’re on a knife-edge.
No, but it is treated as such. Whatever the case was that the 9th Circuit decided, it applies ONLY to the parties involved, just as the Roe v. Wade decision SHOULD have constitutionally affected ONLY the parties involved, NOT the whole country.
To those who did not vote for Romney in the last election, “thanks a pantload.” Your refusal to go with the lesser of two evils gave us the greater of two evils. Lovely. And the stakes will be even higher in this election. It’s existential, people. We’re on a knife-edge.
Hardly. Bush gave us Roberts. McConnell is poised to give us Garland. There’s something rotten here. Let me buy you a clue: It isn’t the GOP base and those who took a powder on Mittens.
Romney got a million more votes than McCain and hero Palin, and he got more votes from a smaller electorate.
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.