Today, SCOTUS Makes Unions Impotent

[Teatownclown]

SCOTUS just finished their grand plan to keep the GOP in permanent majority.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf

The Court apparently used the opportunity to cripple unions' ability to raise money for political action.

Where are all the TNF Union Haters?

[Conan71]

Mind providing an un-biased summary of what this ruling did?   I'm truly curious.  Most of us simply don't have time to read and digest a 48 page opinion full of scholarly legalese.

[guido911]

Mind providing an un-biased summary of what this ruling did?   I'm truly curious.  Most of us simply don't have time to read and digest a 48 page opinion full of scholarly legalese.

Just take that bozo's idiot quote "The Court apparently used the opportunity to cripple unions' ability to raise money for political action." and add "by taking from non-consenting non-union members" at the end. There's more to it, but you get the idea. Sea hag even went with the majority on this. 

Here's a right leaning link discussing it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/supreme-court-curbs-union-abuse/2012/06/21/gJQANKxntV_blog.html

[Teatownclown]

Mind providing an un-biased summary of what this ruling did?   I'm truly curious.  Most of us simply don't have time to read and digest a 48 page opinion full of scholarly legalese.

It's from SCOTUS with love for you.... http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206220005

Read up! (Conan, you can't do your own research?)

[Conan71]

By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembers and permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate. The SEIU, however, asks us to go farther. It asks us to approve a procedure under which (a) a special assessment billed for use in electoral campaigns was assessed without providing anew opportunity for nonmembers to decide whether they wished to contribute to this effort and (b) nonmembers who previously opted out were nevertheless required to pay more than half of the special assessment even though the union had said that the purpose of the fund was to mount a political campaign and that it would not be used for ordinary union expenses. This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible.

Just wow.  Extorting Forcing non-members to pay into campaigns they may or may not agree with?  7-2 split with Sotomayor and Ginsburg concurring?  That's hardly a sign the conservatives are over-running the court.

[Conan71]

It's from SCOTUS with love for you.... http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206220005

Read up! (Conan, you can't do your own research?)

Sorry, I'm trying to sell some boilers today, I figured you probably weren't quite as busy as me.  

I love how unbiased this is:

The Roberts Court's five Republican-appointed justices invented a new rule that threatens to greatly weaken public employee unions in yesterday's Knox v. SEIU decision. Reaching out to decide an issue that the parties to the case never argued, these justices instead engaged in "radical policy-making"

Look at it this way: if you worked for an employer who was supporting a gay marriage ban or abortion ban and they demanded you must contribute to their support of the campaign, would you want your hand to be forced to write a check for that sort of campaign?  Why is that any different than someone who is a NON-union member who doesn't support the initiative the union is forcing them to contribute to?

Upon reading a little deeper, it really is a First Amendment issue, not an attack on unions.  If anything what the SEIU was trying to do was attack the autonomy of the non-union American worker.

[guido911]

Sorry, I'm trying to sell some boilers today, I figured you probably weren't quite as busy as me.  

I love how unbiased this is:

Look at it this way: if you worked for an employer who was supporting a gay marriage ban or abortion ban and they demanded you must contribute to their support of the campaign, would you want your hand to be forced to write a check for that sort of campaign?  Why is that any different than someone who is a NON-union member who doesn't support the initiative the union is forcing them to contribute to?

Upon reading a little deeper, it really is a First Amendment issue, not an attack on unions.  If anything what the SEIU was trying to do was attack the autonomy of the non-union American worker.

It's from freakin Media Matters. What did you expect. At least I try to tell readers how my sources tend to lean. That way, the facts should be accurate but watch out for spin.

[Teatownclown]

It's from freakin Media Matters. What did you expect. At least I try to tell readers how my sources tend to lean. That way, the facts should be accurate but watch out for spin.

You are full of nonsense....

Majority Of GOP Polled Get Basic Facts Wrong
Rather than a failure of the media, therefore, this latest poll result seems to indicate a refusal -- unique to the modern Republican Party -- to acknowledge facts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/iraq-wmd-poll-clueless-vast-majority-republicans_n_1616012.html

ahem....

[guido911]

You are full of nonsense....

ahem....

What does that link have to do with SCOTUS and unions?

[Teatownclown]

What does that link have to do with SCOTUS and unions?

"FACTS SHOULD BE ACCURATE" Guido


oh the irony....

‎"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.

[Conan71]

"FACTS SHOULD BE ACCURATE" Guido


oh the irony....

‎"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.

Indulge us though in how this is a conservative attack on unions, rather than affirming the First Amendment right of workers.  Considering Ginsburg and Sotomayor were in the majority on this one sort of blows a hole in this being conservative activism.