Connect with us

News

Supreme Court Delivers Yet Another Massive Blow to Democrats

Published

on

The Supreme Court continued to assault the progressive agenda on Wednesday after ruling in favor of a public sector employee who refused join a public union and objected to paying union fees that were automatically taken from his paycheck.

The decision was written by Justice Samuel Alito who said “states and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.”

You would think that taking someone else’s money for something they didn’t want to participate in would automatically be considered wrong and immoral, but hey, welcome to liberal America in the 21st century.

Trending: Two Men Break Into Texas Man’s Home Before Dawn. It’s A Huge Mistake And You Already Know Why.

The case involved Mark Janus, a child support worker in Illinois, who would not join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents state employees. He would not pay the $45 union fee (known as an “agency” or “fair share” fee) the union demanded every month from his paycheck.

take our poll - story continues below

Will Joe Biden's speaking gaffes negatively affect his run for President?

  • Will Joe Biden's speaking gaffes negatively affect his run for President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The right of the union to collect the fee was based on the SCOTUS decision in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. That decision permitted a union to charge only for services from which nonunion members benefited, including negotiating and administering a collective bargaining agreement and handling grievance procedures, as marketplace.org noted.

But the Supreme Court reversed the Abood decision, ruling that Janus was “undisputedly injured in fact by Illinois’ agency-fee scheme and his injuries can be redressed by a favorable court decision … The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public- sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.”

Slamming the Abood decision, the Court wrote, “Abood was poorly reasoned, and those arguing for retaining it have recast its reasoning, which further undermines its stare decisis effect.”

Here’s more of what SCOTUS had to say on the matter:

Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers … Neither of Abood’s two justifications for agency fees passes muster under this standard. First, agency fees cannot be upheld on the ground that they promote an interest in “labor peace.” The Abood Court’s fears of conflict and disruption if employees were represented by more than one union have proved to be unfounded: Exclusive representation of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are not inextricably linked. To the contrary, in the Federal Government and the 28 States with laws prohibiting agency fees, millions of public employees are represented by unions that effectively serve as the exclusive representatives of all the employees. Whatever may have been the case 41 years ago when Abood was decided, it is thus now undeniable that “labor peace” can readily be achieved through less restrictive means than the assessment of agency fees.

Second, avoiding “the risk of ‘free riders,’ ” Abood, supra, at 224, is not a compelling state interest. Free-rider “arguments . . . are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections,” Knox, su- pra, at 311, and the statutory requirement that unions represent members and nonmembers alike does not justify different treatment. As is evident in non-agency-fee jurisdictions, unions are quite willing to represent nonmembers in the absence of agency fees. And their duty of fair representation is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to be the exclusive representative. In any event, States can avoid free riders through less restrictive means than the imposition of agency fees.

This is a huge blow for Democrats, many of whom use unions and union leaders to rally votes during important elections. However, it’s a great victory for those of us who love the idea of freedom and personal choice, which hopefully is the majority of folks in our country.

Anytime someone is forced to participate in something they want no part of, liberty takes a massive blow, which is one of the many reasons Republicans were opposed to Obamacare, which forces individuals to purchase a specific product or else be penalized.

Let’s hope these awesome decisions keep rolling out of the Supreme Court, shutting down the leftist agenda.

Source: The Daily Wire

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

BOMBSHELL: Overstock CEO Says Strzok Had Him Commit Political Espionage, & Comey’s Involved

UMMMMM…..

John Salvatore

Published

on

WHAT. THE. HECK?? This sounds like kind of a big deal… From Daily Wire: Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, who resigned from the company on Thursday amid his alleged ties to a government operation, made bombshell accusations on CNN late on Thursday night, claiming that top FBI officials reached out to him in 2015-2016 to conduct law enforcement activities that turned out to be political espionage. Byrne appeared to indicate that the request came from FBI agents after it was passed down from a top FBI official, who he later says he learned was anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok. Byrne said that the political espionage operation targeted four candidates: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. WATCH: Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne says the FBI in 2015/2016 reached out to him and got him to help with law enforcement activities that turned out to be political espionage against Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz Byrne says the request came from Peter Strzok https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1164713067717914624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164713067717914624&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F50951%2Foverstock-ceo-bombshell-claim-fbis-strzok-behind-ryan-saavedra Another: BREAKING: Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne claims former FBI Director James Comey was involved in this entire operation https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1164716230277599232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164716230277599232&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F50951%2Foverstock-ceo-bombshell-claim-fbis-strzok-behind-ryan-saavedra Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne says: -He liked Obama, did not vote for Trump -More whistleblowers are coming forward -National security state was weaponized -James Comey knew “100%” -Republicans wrong, Democrats did not dream up the investigation, it was the FBI and was politicized https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1164727100919570432 Hi, just in case you didn’t think things could get weirder, the former CEO of Overstock is on Fox saying that the feds told him he should sleep with Maria Butina https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1164680118079492096 Stay tuned for more in the immediate future…

Continue Reading

News

VIDEO PROOF: Democrat Rep. Says We Need the Undocumented to Mow ‘Our Beautiful Lawns’

Will the MSM care? Nah.

John Salvatore

Published

on

Imagine if New Jersey Democrat Rep. Tom Malinowski – Who? – was a Republican. He would, unequivocally, beyond a shadow of a doubt, be forced to resign from office. No question about it. Here’s why… From Daily Wire: Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) explained to his constituents earlier in the week that illegal immigrants are necessary members of New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District because they are willing to take on the jobs that the community’s teenagers will no longer do. Malinowski noted, “We have to think about the jobs because the reason this happens is because there are a lot of jobs in our community that, like it or not, for better or worse, Americans are not willing to take.” He added, “I mean, who do you think is taking care of our seniors? Fifty percent of the eldercare workers in the state of New Jersey are immigrants, most of them legal – most of them documented – but certainly some of them are not. Who do you think is mowing our beautiful lawns in Somerset County? We don’t usually ask but a lot of those workers are undocumented.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) used to talk an awful lot like President Trump, back in the day. In fact, old (…or young?) Pelosi did not care for illegal aliens. She even went as far as saying “we certainly don’t” need more of them. See for yourself: https://twitter.com/IWV/status/1152186873252651014?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1152186873252651014&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fvideo-surfaces-showing-hypocrite-pelosi-sounding-a-lot-like-trump%2F Pelosi doesn’t get along well with young House Democrats. She took a major swipe at AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and another freshman liberal in a way that caught Twitter’s attention. See for yourself: Speaker Pelosi says ⁦⁦@AOC⁩, ⁦@IlhanMN⁩, ⁦@AyannaPressley⁩ and ⁦⁦@RashidaTlaib “have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend