Skip to comments.Justice Post Blindfold
Posted on 03/04/2018 8:06:57 AM PST by Kaslin
While the Supreme Court heard oral argument, last week, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the court of public opinion focused not so much on the constitutionality of the law in question, i.e. justice, but instead on the partisan impact of the decision, i.e. politics.
The case concerns Mark Janus, a child-care specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, who refuses to join the union. Nonetheless, by state law, Janus is forced to pay agency fees to AFSCME.
Those agency fees are 78 percent of what a union member pays in dues. The other 22 percent? The amount AFSME claims to spend on politics with all contributions going to Democrats. Mr. Janus, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center, argues that the union is intrinsically political and that he has a First Amendment right not to be coerced to pay AFSCME to keep his job.
Most observers believed the Supreme Court was poised to rule forced union dues unconstitutional in a different case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, before Justice Antonin Scalias passing in early 2016. Instead, without Scalia or a replacement, the Court deadlocked 4-4 in that case. Now with President Donald Trumps pick, Justice Neil Gorsuch, replacing Scalia, most Court-watchers believe Mr. Janus will prevail, 5-4.
Maybe that is why a Washington Post editorial advances the notion that the court was presented with two questions. The first is the legal issue . . . and the second implicit question is how the court should conduct judicial review in a deeply polarized society.
The Post also claims that plaintiff Mark Janus and his legal team are seeking an extraordinary remedy in the context of the Supreme Courts tumultuous recent history.
But that history is not Mark Januss.
Or the unions.
Or even U.S. labor relations.
The history the editors are referring to is Washingtons bitter 2016 political fight over President Barack Obamas nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia. Republicans refused to hold hearings on the nomination or bring Mr. Garland to a vote. Unusual, but also lawful, as the Constitution requires that the U.S. Senate consent to the nominee.
What does political polarization have to do with the facts or law of this case? Nothing. Except . . . whats in peril is a system whereby government workers who do not wish to join a union are nonetheless forced to pay union dues that somehow get directly funneled to only one of those political poles.
So, if the Court nixes current law, AFSCME might wind up with fewer dues paying members . . . meaning less money for AFSCMEs political pet, the Democratic Party.
And Democrats now stuck with a conservative replacement for the late Justice Scalia are left only with Obamas pronouncement: Elections have consequences.
[B]efore those justices pick up pens to sign organized labors death warrant, pleads the Washington Posts Dana Milbank, perhaps theyll pause to consider, as AFSCME attorney David Frederick warned at the end of arguments Monday, that they will raise an untold specter of labor unrest throughout the country.
Death warrant? Sure, thats hyperbole, but as fellow Post columnist Charles Lane offers, A recent survey by AFSCME of its 1.6?million members found that only 35?percent of them would definitely pay dues if not required to do so.
Which, again, doesnt seem like a good argument for continuing to coerce working folks into coughing over the money.
If stripping a political advocacy group of the power to force workers to join their efforts is a crippling event, wrote David Harsanyi, a senior editor at The Federalist, then its an event worth celebrating.
Still, the capitals paper of record will not be breaking out the champagne. Rather, embarrassingly, the Post makes its bizarre case for steering the court modestly down the middle of the road.
A lady, blindfolded, holding scales and a sword symbolizes justice. That blindfold is there not so judges can avoid reading the law. Instead, it represents the absolute imperative to be blind to the politics.
LOL! Can we say that Garland got "Borked?" Or is there a new term - he got "Garlanded." Sucks to be Democrats. The Republicans were just following the "Biden Rule."
And that would quickly drop to zero once they discovered their "brothers" weren't paying the tributes.
I work in a "mixed shop" meaning that there are both represented (union) and unrepresented employees there (I'm proudly non-union). I've seen several contract cycles and the increasing irritation of union shills getting screwed by their reps. They are slowly catching on to the fraud and racketeering that has been perpetrated against them.
Non-public sector unions are dying a well-deserved death. I wish the public-sector unions would die even faster!
nobody should be forced by law to pay money to any private organization or business
1. many of them provide precious little real representation assistance to their “members”
2. there’s no effective check or balance or control to make sure they do
3. they can be very coercive at the work site
4. some of the largest unions especially use the extracted monies for patently political propaganda, political contributions, and political lobbying.
5. some of the worst corruption cases are in unions
I think the unions offed Antonin Gregory Scalia so as to keep this issue from being determined against unionists.
Sooooo, Liberals keep saying that ruling in favor of Janus will bring union unrest and perhaps violence. Isn’t this first order thuggery? This is essentially threatening the Supreme Court.
A favorable Janus decision could seriously alter the political landscape as monster union contributions dry up.
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.