Skip to comments.Supreme Court's conservatives appear set to strike down union fees on free-speech grounds
Posted on 02/08/2018 7:01:41 PM PST by SpeedyInTexas
click here to read article
“Expansion” of the 1st Amendment via judicial meddling ought not be tolerated all it does is erode the Constitution to allow the Judiciary to usurp power.
15 posts before anyone brought up that little turd. Kudos
(The big lie that they’ve forced on everybody is that the supreme court is superior in authority to the Constitution.)
Yes, but it’s the big lie the unconstitutional govt(s) follows (Fed AND State).
Unfort, no even PDT is rocking THAT boat :S
I think the Left will have to play Roberts again - this case is too big to lose.
In real life, if the ambulance service is contracted to respond to emergency 911 calls, the contract would specify a legal obligation to respond to ALL calls. If it's a private service which, for example, just does non-emergency calls, effectively being a taxi service for invalids needing to visit their doctors, then they should be able to decide who they choose to transport. The driver may not care about "perverts", but might balk at transporting gang members who might put the driver at risk of violence, or people with a record of not paying.
My particular complaint is all the unions in live theaters.
Plays are a traditional and hallowed form of speech in the public square, and the unions are like leeches all too often making the costs prohibitive.
It’s the next New Civil Rights Movement (although it’s nothing new.)
Unions of one should be all that is required. The marketplace is its own union of sorts. It dictates what wages are sustainable.
Let’s hope so!!!
>> Expansion of the 1st Amendment via judicial meddling ought not be tolerated
> So you agree that rulings in favor of the baker and against the Teamsters would be an expansion of the 1st Amendment?
Yes — The 1st amendment ONLY constrains Congress, and the whole issue here is NOT “free speech” but rather “involuntary servitude”.
Except that's not what Marbury v Madison actually says; what it says is (a) the courts have to be able to read/apply [ie interpret] the Constitution, and (b) anything contrary to the Constitution is void.
The courts have reinterpreted (a) to mean that they can re-interpret the Constitution as they see fit, adding and removing
penumbras and emanations at will, because [IMO] (a) isn't really written well; Marbury v Madison would be much better if it only said (b).
In the 19th Century the power was used rarely, compared to today, and not always wisely, i e Dred Scott. In our time the calendar is filled with opportunities to remake the Constitution.
Dred Scot wasn't even Marbury v Madison interpretive power; it was the Supreme Court essentially saying
A slave, even if freed, can never become a Citizen (form wikipedia:
finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States), which made a third class of person in the States: Citizen, Slave, and
non-citizen native owing allegiance to no other State. (The last state essentially being the man-without-a-country problem.)
>> (The big lie that they’ve forced on everybody is that the supreme court is superior in authority to the Constitution.)
> Yes, but it’s the big lie the unconstitutional govt(s) follows (Fed AND State).
> Unfort, no even PDT is rocking THAT boat :S
Funny thing is that there's a lot of problems that simply go away, or become much more manageable, if the Constitution is followed.
(PDT = President Donald Trump?)
No, because they're saying this is a 1st Amendment matter — the first amendment ONLY applies restrictions to
Congress any applications to any other entities is misconstruing and eroding it.
some are never Trump, some trolls, and some liberaltarians
The down side (forgetting politics for a moment) is that the sluggards are compensated equally with the ones carrying the load, and they usually know there will be no consequences for their laziness or incompetence .
And, from my own experience, other than obtaining a wage/benefit package for its members all a union really does is collect dues. I never once saw the union take up the gauntlet on behalf of an aggrieved individual employee,
You don't really believe that do you?
You shouldn't, I'm sure he knew what a terrible mess things were in when he accepted the job.
I'll bet he's having the time of his life.
Not to me. To companies. Sure, they may put on airs about their workforce "family" and what's best for them, but the bottom line is what really matters, as it should.
As long as there is no force or coercion whatsoever applied to workers by union to join, and no government side-choosing, by all means form a union. I’m just against all the subsidies for them.
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.