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: As If The Matt Gaetz Case Couldn’t Get Any Weirder…

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

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • 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

US Pop Star Offers to Pay Fines For Olympic Team Protesting Skimpy Outfits

The IOC wants the women to remain scantily clad, and this is undoubtedly on account of their incessant greed.

Published

on

The Olympics may have built themselves as some sort of prestigious and untouchable global event in years past, but the last few decades have revealed just what a shady cash-grab the games have become. It all began in the 90’s when the financially-struggling Winter Olympics added snowboarding to the games, in a move that was blatantly meant to generate ad revenue from the emerging sport and its fans.  In this quest to cash in, the International Olympic Committee refused to allow any actual snowboarding organizations participate in the operations, which drove several of the world’s best to boycott.  This, in turn, completely ruined the concept that the gold medalists were truly the best in the world, and exposed the IOC as nothing more than a marketing firm. Now, in 2021, a number of female athletes are complaining that they are being forced to wear skimpier clothes than their male counterparts, (often in the same discipline), to which the IOC responded with a “be quiet and play” sort of attitude. Again, the skimpier outfits equate to more ratings, so Olympic organizers are refusing to make accommodations. This has led US pop star Pink to step up.  US pop star Pink has offered to pay the fines handed out to the Norwegian women’s beach handball team, after they wore shorts like their male counterparts instead of bikini bottoms. The team was fined 1,500 euros (£1,295) for “improper clothing” at the European Beach Handball Championships last week. “I’m very proud of the Norwegian female beach handball team for protesting sexist rules about their uniform,” tweeted the singer on Sunday. “Good on ya, ladies,” she added. “I’ll be happy to pay your fines for you. Keep it up.” In doing so, the Olympics will get their coveted cash and these female athletes will be able to perform…

Continue Reading

News

GOP Rep. Says There’s ‘Credible’ Evidence of Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory

China has been avoiding any such investigation for months now.

Published

on

From the very moment that the COVID-19 pandemic began, there were concerns that China wasn’t telling us the truth. This was primarily based on Beijing’s horrendous record of dishonesty when it comes to the international community, which has been ever-so frequent in cases in which the Chinese government could be made to appear cruel or uncaring. To be fair, it doesn’t take long for most to realize that this is, in fact, reality, especially as we continue to receive credible reports of the nation’s use of concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. In the case of the coronavirus, not only did the world discover that the data coming out of Beijing was wholly incorrect, but that a laboratory specializing in the exact type of coronaviruses that caused COVID-19 happened to be just a few miles away from the epicenter of the pandemic. Now, despite numerous attempts to stall or stymy efforts to investigate the theory that pandemic began as a lab-leak, one US lawmaker is claiming that there is credible evidence of just such a possibility.  Sunday, on FNC’s “The Next Revolution,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) stressed the importance of investigating the origins of COVID-19, and in particular, China’s role. His statement was stern. “As you know, we still have yet to have any notice that there will be an investigation. And so I think, rightfully, we used the powers of oversight that we have in Congress and we convened a hearing. Unfortunately, none of the Democrats attended that hearing. But the expert testimony from the witnesses was quite profound and quite significant. “And I think as they said, and I would tend to agree that this virus came from the laboratory, whether it was a leak, whether it was accidental, whether it was intentional, whether it was manmade or whether it…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week