Skip to comments.
Unions Lose on Political Fee Issue (Supreme Court Ruling)
Houston Chronicle (AP) ^
| 6/14/2007
| Mark Sherman
Posted on 06/14/2007 7:45:26 AM PDT by Pyro7480
WASHINGTON States may force public sector labor unions to get consent from workers before using their fees for political activities, the Supreme Court said Thursday.
The court unanimously upheld a Washington state law that applied to public employees who choose not to join the union that represents them in contract talks with state and local governments. The workers are compelled to pay the equivalent of union dues, a portion of which the union uses for political activities.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said the law does not violate the union's First Amendment rights.
But the state's Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled legislature recently changed the law to eliminate the provision that was upheld Thursday, blunting the impact of the court ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: forceddonations; supremecourt; unionfees; unions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
Interesting...
1
posted on
06/14/2007 7:45:29 AM PDT
by
Pyro7480
To: Pyro7480
Just reinforcing the Beck decision.
L
2
posted on
06/14/2007 7:47:58 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing small pox to plague.)
To: Pyro7480
So the dems change of the law in against the law?
3
posted on
06/14/2007 7:48:12 AM PDT
by
Phlap
(REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
To: Pyro7480
Can you envision the huge loss of demRat campaign funds if workers - including millions of republicans - could refuse to have money stolen from them for democrat use?What a gigantic loss of revenue =
for years, they have stolen money from republican workers to fund the democratic party. about time for this to end.
4
posted on
06/14/2007 7:57:09 AM PDT
by
maine-iac7
( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
To: Pyro7480
States may force public sector labor unions to get consent from workers before using their fees for political activities
It is hard to believe that in this free country you have to force democracy on a group that claims to represent its members. Funny stuff.
5
posted on
06/14/2007 7:59:54 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: Pyro7480
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said the law does not violate the union's First Amendment rightsdo unions even have First Amendment rights?
To: ghost of nixon
do unions even have First Amendment rights? Yes; thanks to the misapplied stare decisis rulings allowing for corporations to have the same standing as a human in court.
7
posted on
06/14/2007 8:39:40 AM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: Pyro7480
But the state’s Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled legislature recently changed the law...
We desperately need a revolution in this country.
8
posted on
06/14/2007 8:48:11 AM PDT
by
proudpapa
(Thompson and/or Hunter.)
To: Pyro7480
Unions Lose on Political Fee Issue (Supreme Court Ruling) That means the Wisconsin Right to Life ruling (now pending) is just about a sure thing.
9
posted on
06/14/2007 9:03:14 AM PDT
by
IMRight
To: Pyro7480
10
posted on
06/14/2007 9:25:37 AM PDT
by
Gritty
(Rule by the people is threatened if they are unable to get a plausible grip on reality-Tony Blankley)
To: ghost of nixon
Persons have rights, and in some legalistic sense a labor union can be considered a “person,” just as are other incorporated entities (e.g., business firms).
However, a labor union’s free speech rights are not at all constrained in any legal or constitutional sense by their being denied free rein to spend their members’ dues monies for partisan political purposes.
11
posted on
06/14/2007 9:46:20 AM PDT
by
Elsiejay
To: Pyro7480
Better late than never. Of course if the Republican senate had enforced Beck when it had the chance we would be so much better off.
12
posted on
06/14/2007 10:29:08 AM PDT
by
jmaroneps37
(The Islamists plan to kill us.The Democrats and the ratmedia are helping them. Ft Dix proves it!)
To: proudpapa
"But the states Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled legislature recently changed the law... We desperately need a revolution in this country"
It's even worse than that. Not only did WA state pass the law, they then passed a law stating the people CAN'T overturn it with a referendum. So unions are more important and have more rights than individuals under WA law. I don't understand how WA can pass the law anyway. Didn't the USSC rule it illegal? What do I not understand?
13
posted on
06/14/2007 11:35:18 AM PDT
by
boop
(Now Greg, you know I don't like that WORD!)
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: ghost of nixon
well, according to SCOTUS, corporations do
15
posted on
06/14/2007 12:07:50 PM PDT
by
ChurtleDawg
(kill em all)
To: boop
We are headed for tyranny in this country. A good indicator of that is what the Democrats do when they control a state legislature plus the governorship.
16
posted on
06/14/2007 12:31:39 PM PDT
by
California Patriot
("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
To: California Patriot
The tyranny WA Democrats demonstrated in this is also a good indicator of what Demodogs will do in Washington DC when they next control both houses of Congress plus the presidency.
We better all get our act together here soon.
17
posted on
06/14/2007 1:38:34 PM PDT
by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
To: AFPhys
Yes. That’s why I have such contempt for FReepers who are willing to let Hillary be president because they hate Rudy. Rudy isn’t great by a long shot. But if he’s the nominee, we must support him. Otherwise, we will lose the country, period.
18
posted on
06/14/2007 1:47:36 PM PDT
by
California Patriot
("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
To: California Patriot
Well,I’ll give you Rudy does look better in a dress than Hillary.
19
posted on
06/14/2007 3:52:29 PM PDT
by
hoosierham
(Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a creditcard?)
To: hoosierham
Don’t clutter this thread with this irrelevant krap. If you can address my point substantively, do that. If you can’t, don’t respond.
20
posted on
06/14/2007 5:13:45 PM PDT
by
California Patriot
("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
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