Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Post Blindfold
Townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2018 | Paul Jacob

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 Scalia’s passing in early 2016. Instead, without Scalia or a replacement, the Court deadlocked 4-4 in that case. Now with President Donald Trump’s 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 Court’s tumultuous recent history.”

But that history is not Mark Janus’s.

Or the union’s.

Or even U.S. labor relations’.

The history the editors are referring to is Washington’s bitter 2016 political fight over President Barack Obama’s 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 . . . what’s 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 AFSCME’s political pet, the Democratic Party.

And Democrats — now stuck with a conservative replacement for the late Justice Scalia — are left only with Obama’s pronouncement: “Elections have consequences.”

“[B]efore those justices pick up pens to sign organized labor’s death warrant,” pleads the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, “perhaps they’ll 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, that’s 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, doesn’t 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 it’s an event worth celebrating.”

Still, the capital’s 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: afscme; biglabor; janus; laborunions; lawsuit; scotus; supremecourt

1 posted on 03/04/2018 8:06:57 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
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.

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."

2 posted on 03/04/2018 8:30:53 AM PST by Cowboy Bob ("Other People's Money" = The life blood of Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
“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.”

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!

3 posted on 03/04/2018 8:33:53 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

nobody should be forced by law to pay money to any private organization or business

especially when...
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


forcing a person to give his/her money to any private (and highly political, often) organization violates his Free Speech and Free Association rights (First Amendment)


4 posted on 03/04/2018 8:44:48 AM PST by faithhopecharity ("Politicans aren't born, they're excreted." -Marcus Tillius Cicero (3 BCE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think the unions offed Antonin Gregory Scalia so as to keep this issue from being determined against unionists.


5 posted on 03/04/2018 9:19:12 AM PST by Joe Boucher (President Trump makes obammy look like the punk he is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.


6 posted on 03/04/2018 11:57:25 AM PST by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
I suspect they will, now, if Janus prevails. Government at all levels has been a closed shop since Kennedy made public employee unions legal. But with unusual legal protections, public employees don't really need unions, and most are sufficiently secure in their jobs that they won't pay if they don't have to.

A favorable Janus decision could seriously alter the political landscape as monster union contributions dry up.

7 posted on 03/05/2018 6:25:56 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson