YUGE: Supreme Court to rule on public union fees

quote:

---

5-4 against the unions will make me happy.

---

I'll probably laugh too. Those union members are the ones who flipped to vote for Trump. They get what they deserve.

quote:

---

Chris Opfer? @ChrisOpfer

NEW: #SCOTUS gets another shot to decide if public unions can charge "fair share" fees to nonmembers. Janus (7th Cir.) workers filing cert.


Public sector unions get approximately 25% of their funding from laws that allow this

---

If I remember correctly, there are some glaring vehicle issues with the Janus case. I think something along the lines of all the original plaintiffs being dismissed (which would normally end the case), but the intervenor is the one who actually had a cause of action and the 7th Circuit just kind of hop-skipped-jumped over that issue in dismissing the case.

It may be that the vehicle issues keep the Janus case from being the next one.

I want to see Abood die a horrible death, so I hope this case gets taken. But, if it does get taken, I'm sure you'll see tons of amicus briefs pointing out to the court why there are procedural problems.

If my recollection is wrong, oh well. The OP is wrong in that nothing has been granted and the Court has not said it will rule on fair share fees yet.

ETA: Here is the 7th Circuit opinion. I was generally right about the procedural issue.

quote:

---

Those union members are the ones who flipped to vote for Trump. They get what they deserve.

---

this reminds me of the Wisconsin recall efforts

iirc private unions (the ones you're referencing) did not support the recall and the public sector unions did

quote:

---

Is this the same union case from California that Scalia was going to help rule on before he died?

---

No. They tried to get that case to hang around until a new justice was seated, but the court gave it the death knell.

This is a new case out of Illinois that poses the same exact question. As a matter of fact, both the California case and the Janus case were both engineered by the exact same attorney IIRC.

Yeah ruling that unions can no longer confiscate dues from people who don't want to be in the union will make the working class furious.

Hahaha

Are you that dumb?

quote:

---

Can't wait to see the meltdown when Gorsuch fricks up the public unions something raw.

---

I wouldn't count your ducks just yet on that. Abood has been binding for so long, that Gorsuch has never had the occasion to opine on whether union fees violate the First Amendment.

While I would fully expect that he would like to vote with the conservatives, Gorsuch has written a whole book dedicated to the importance of precedent.

The main argument against overruling Abood is that it is firmly entrenched and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of contracts are reliant upon it.

It'll be interesting nonetheless.

Teachers Union Votes Hillary

Unions say majority of members support Hillary

APWU votes Hillary

AFT endorses hillary

SEIU endorses Hillary

AFSCME endorses Hillary

Teamsters endorse Hillary UFCW endorses Hillary

AFL-CIO endorses Hillary


I'm pretty sure you are wrong. During the primaries they hesitated, with some liking Sanders...but not in the General Election.
The Fraternal order of Police and ICE endorsed Trump.
As did the Border Patrol.

Amazing. the law enforcement unions thought Trump would be better.


Seriously. Do you think it fair to make people who choose not to be in a union to pay dues to the union?


If the Shriners decided they wanted you to send them a $35 check every month and you had no say in the matter, how would you feel about it?

Nice!

quote:

---

I'll probably laugh too. Those union members are the ones who flipped to vote for Trump. They get what they deserve.

---

Not sure why anyone thought they should get free money.