Monday, June 30, 2014

Supreme Court: Unions Can’t Charge Fees to Certain Non-Members

"In a case that threatened the future of public employee unions, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled so-called agency fees charged to certain non-union members violate those members' First Amendment rights."
The high court stopped short of barring all public employee unions from charging agency fees to non-members. The employees in the case before the court-Illinois homecare workers-were not “full-fledged” public employees, the court said. 
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. (read more)
The Supremes also ruled in favor of Hooby Looby.

24 comments:

edutcher said...

Suddenly, the Demos' fortunes aren't as high.

edutcher said...

PS Hobby Lobby won, too.

Maybe Mr Roberts finally heard us.

KCFleming said...

So Roberts okayed the ACA which contained this codicil, and now says oops.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

This ruling will be of little practical consequence since homecare workers will soon be replaced by robots.

edutcher said...

Better oops than nothing.

AllenS said...

I take it Mr. Bat that you've never taken care of someone at home.

Unknown said...

"Those workers who chose not to join the union had to pay proportional "fair share" fees to cover collective bargaining and other administration costs."

Seems clear to me. How is it fair, oh liberals, to force someone to pay for something they don't want?


Since the entire public union machine is now a wholly owned subsidiary to the democrat party, and no longer a benefit to any employee in terms of collective bargaining - the whole corrupt pyramid-ponzi scheme should be scrapped.
This is a small start. Shame on our liberal justices for their anti-first amendment dissent.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Roberts Schwaberts. These are small steps in the right direction but that is about it. I just wish he did the right thing two years ago, but he didn't and we are stuck with it.

edutcher said...

I'll still take it.

My point is he isn't taking his marching orders from the WaPo, it would seem (at least as much).

Court decisions can always be reversed. That's about the only good thing regarding judicial review.

ndspinelli said...

Tough day for Obama, one of many lately.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

I had thought the pendulum, they talk about, had swung so wildly left that it had broken off.

Today we have a sighting.

The Dude said...

He has no tough days - he will still do whatever he wants. Look for an EO to override this decision. No law will restrain him.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) says the Hobby Lobby ruling, which says that for-profit companies do not have to provide coverage for contraceptives due to religious views, is “totally unacceptable.”

I'm Full of Soup said...

When they lose a SCOTUS ruling, Do Repubs react as stridently and as hysterically as Dems do? I don't think Repubs do. Repubs have a bit more respect for the rule of law.

Unknown said...

well then, Debbie Wasserman(D), we must amend the constitution and force all for-profit businesses to become non-profit and turn it all over to the wonderful government and thusly run it all like the VA.


Rabel said...

5 - 4 again.

If the Republicans don't take the Senate this year or in 2016 and don't take the White House in 2016, the country will be in even deeper shit than otherwise.

Fortunately, the party at the national level is run by wise elder statesmen with the best interests of the nation and the citizens at heart.

We're fucked.

Rabel said...

Lem, may I be excused for a few minutes. I need to go to the restroom and throw up.

Calypso Facto said...

I saw that "Constitutional lawyer in the White House" phrase going around the internet, Rabel, but I truly thought it was gloating sarcasm, not a statement FROM the White House! How embarrassing.

Lydia said...

A 5-4 decision for Hobby Lobby. Not one liberal justice could decide in favor of religious protections. Depressing, and scary.

Trooper York said...

That is exactly right Lydia. Religious freedom is hanging by a one vote majority on the Supreme Court.

If Obama gets to put more Justices on the Court we will have a big problem.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Gov. Bobby Jindal · 4h
.@BarackObama is now Googling “Can an Executive Order override Supreme Court?” #HobbyLobby

oh snap.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

A defiant Obama took to the Rose Garden to talk about immigration reform hours after the Supreme Court slapped him down yet again.

It was his way of flipping the bird to the Supremes.

Obama is out of control.

Trooper York said...

Wasn't Hooby Looby a a song by Roy Orbison?

Unknown said...

The left are screaming about how this will hurt women.

riiiight.

Because without the government forcing insurance companies to pay for birth control pills & condoms, how did we ever survive?