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.

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

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • 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

News

TX School Administrator Suggests Teaching ‘Opposing Viewpoints’ to The Holocaust

State level authorities were quick to shut that theory down.

Published

on

There is apparently some sever confusion in the Lone Star State regarding the nature of a new law regarding public school curriculums, and it has many around the nation alarmed.

The idea of school as a place to open your mind and absurd a variety of different viewpoints is nothing new.  In fact, it isn’t hard to argue that this is perhaps exactly what the public education system should be doing.

But there are some viewpoints out there that do not meet the standard of our civilized society, and one school administrator in Texas appears to believe that the new law requires these heinous conspiracy theories to become part of the classroom.

A top administrator with the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake advised teachers last week that if they have a book about the Holocaust in their classroom, they should also offer students access to a book from an “opposing” perspective, according to an audio recording obtained by NBC News.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • 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.

Gina Peddy, the Carroll school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction, made the comment Friday afternoon during a training session on which books teachers can have in classroom libraries. The training came four days after the Carroll school board, responding to a parent’s complaint, voted to reprimand a fourth grade teacher who had kept an anti-racism book in her classroom.

A Carroll staff member secretly recorded the Friday training and shared the audio with NBC News.

“Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979,” Peddy said in the recording, referring to a new Texas law that requires teachers to present multiple perspectives when discussing “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust,” Peddy continued, “that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”

State officials were quick to point out that this is not what the new law suggests.

Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, a union representing educators, said there’s nothing in the new Texas law explicitly dealing with classroom libraries. Robison said the book guidelines at Carroll, a suburban school district near Fort Worth, are an “overreaction” and a “misinterpretation” of the law. Three other Texas education policy experts agreed.

“We find it reprehensible for an educator to require a Holocaust denier to get equal treatment with the facts of history,” Robison said. “That’s absurd. It’s worse than absurd. And this law does not require it.”

Some lawmakers responded as well.

State Sen. Bryan Hughes, an East Texas Republican who wrote Senate Bill 3, denied that the law requires teachers to provide opposing views on what he called matters of “good and evil” or to get rid of books that offer only one perspective on the Holocaust.

“That’s not what the bill says,” Hughes said in an interview Wednesday when asked about the Carroll book guidelines. “I’m glad we can have this discussion to help elucidate what the bill says, because that’s not what the bill says.”

Denial of The Holocaust, (or the severity of it), has long been seen as a hallmark of white supremacists, and is considered a form of antisemitism.

There is apparently some sever confusion in the Lone Star State regarding the nature of a new law regarding public school curriculums, and it has many around the nation alarmed. The idea of school as a place to open your mind and absurd a variety of different viewpoints is nothing new.  In fact, it isn’t hard to argue that this is perhaps exactly what the public education system should be doing. But there are some viewpoints out there that do not meet the standard of our civilized society, and one school administrator in Texas appears to believe that the new law requires these heinous conspiracy theories to become part of the classroom. A top administrator with the Carroll Independent School District in Southlake advised teachers last week that if they have a book about the Holocaust in their classroom, they should also offer students access to a book from an “opposing” perspective, according to an audio recording obtained by NBC News. Gina Peddy, the Carroll school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction, made the comment Friday afternoon during a training session on which books teachers can have in classroom libraries. The training came four days after the Carroll school board, responding to a parent’s complaint, voted to reprimand a fourth grade teacher who had kept an anti-racism book in her classroom. A Carroll staff member secretly recorded the Friday training and shared the audio with NBC News. “Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979,” Peddy said in the recording, referring to a new Texas law that requires teachers to present multiple perspectives when discussing “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust,” Peddy continued, “that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.” State…

Continue Reading

News

Laundrie Lawyer Goes on the Offensive After TV Host Implicates Parents

Someone’s getting testy…

Published

on

The story of Gabby Petito’s death has captured the attention of the nation in recent weeks, largely due to the strange circumstances surrounding her disappearance, her fiancé’s unwillingness to cooperate with police, his parents’ bizarre behavior, and then, of course the fact that he went missing just hours before Petito’s body was found.

None of these things have screamed innocence in the eyes of the Americans who’ve been following along at home, and Laundrie’s disappearance has allowed speculation to run rampant.

This is true not only for the Joe Anybody, but for television detectives as well, and this hasn’t sat well with a lawyer for the Laundrie family.

Brian Laundrie’s attorney Steve Bertolino tore into “America’s Most Wanted” creator John Walsh Thursday, the morning after the longtime TV host aired an ID channel special on the unsolved homicide of the Florida man’s former fiancée, Gabby Petito.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • 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.

“Gabby Petito: ID Special Report” delved into the details surrounding the 22-year-old Petito’s slaying and Laundrie’s status as a fugitive on a federal bank fraud warrant.

Walsh has long suggested that Brian may have made a run for the border, or be hiding out on the Appalachian Trail – a place that he was once familiar with.

This is where Bertolino got testy.

“I absolutely believe that his family is helping him stay on the run,” said Walsh, who also hosts “In Pursuit with John Walsh” on ID.

Bertolino snapped back at such speculation.

“Dusty relics like that Dog and John Walsh need a tragic situation like this so they can clear the cobwebs off their names and give their publicity-hungry egos some food,” Bertolino told Fox News Digital, also taking aim at Duane “Dog” Chapman, the reality TV star and real-life bounty hunter who entered the search for Laundrie late last month.

Police have returned to the vast wilderness of the Carlton Reserve in their search for Laundrie, this time bringing K-9 units trained to detect human decomposition.

 

 

The story of Gabby Petito’s death has captured the attention of the nation in recent weeks, largely due to the strange circumstances surrounding her disappearance, her fiancé’s unwillingness to cooperate with police, his parents’ bizarre behavior, and then, of course the fact that he went missing just hours before Petito’s body was found. None of these things have screamed innocence in the eyes of the Americans who’ve been following along at home, and Laundrie’s disappearance has allowed speculation to run rampant. This is true not only for the Joe Anybody, but for television detectives as well, and this hasn’t sat well with a lawyer for the Laundrie family. Brian Laundrie’s attorney Steve Bertolino tore into “America’s Most Wanted” creator John Walsh Thursday, the morning after the longtime TV host aired an ID channel special on the unsolved homicide of the Florida man’s former fiancée, Gabby Petito. “Gabby Petito: ID Special Report” delved into the details surrounding the 22-year-old Petito’s slaying and Laundrie’s status as a fugitive on a federal bank fraud warrant. Walsh has long suggested that Brian may have made a run for the border, or be hiding out on the Appalachian Trail – a place that he was once familiar with. This is where Bertolino got testy. “I absolutely believe that his family is helping him stay on the run,” said Walsh, who also hosts “In Pursuit with John Walsh” on ID. Bertolino snapped back at such speculation. “Dusty relics like that Dog and John Walsh need a tragic situation like this so they can clear the cobwebs off their names and give their publicity-hungry egos some food,” Bertolino told Fox News Digital, also taking aim at Duane “Dog” Chapman, the reality TV star and real-life bounty hunter who entered the search for Laundrie late last month. Police…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week