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: What Does Bill Gates Plan to Do After He Vaccinates the World Population?

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

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • 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

Apple Backs Down, Will Allow Parler Back on App Store

The news is seen as a major boost for the First Amendment.

Published

on

Free speech is a fickle thing, and precious too.  If we’re not careful, it can be stripped away but those who hide behind the claim that a “private” company can limit your personal freedoms. Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms are almost always the culprits here, bending the algorithmic reach of those with whom they disagree. Enter Parler:  A free speech app where only the bare legal minimum of content would be moderated. The platform became incredibly popular with an astonishing swiftness, but soon faced trouble from companies who had previously aligned themselves with Facebook and Twitter’s more controlling stance. Apple, who had previously booted Parler from its App Store, has now relented to the Constitution. Apple has approved Parler’s return to the iOS app store following improvements the social media company made to better detect and moderate hate speech and incitement, according to a letter the iPhone maker sent to Congress on Monday. The decision clears the way for Parler, an app popular with conservatives including some members of the far right, to be downloaded once again on Apple devices. The letter — addressed to Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Ken Buck and obtained by CNN — explained that since the app was removed from Apple’s platform in January for violations of its policies, Parler “has proposed updates to its app and the app’s content moderation practices.” On April 14, Apple’s app review team told Parler that its proposed changes were sufficient, the letter continued. Now, all Parler needs to do is to flip the switch. The news is seen as a major boost for the First Amendment.

Continue Reading

News

WATCH: NC Man Slings Rabid Bobcat Across His Front Yard

WOW!

Published

on

For many North Carolinians, neighborhood living brings with it the peace of mind that the most invasive animals you might have to deal with are squirrels who are trying to rest in your attic, or raccoons hoping to fatten up from your trash can.  The Tar Heel state has some bears, sure, but they’re not often the pestering or dangerous type like you might see in the Pacific Northwest or parts of California. But one man this week got up close and personal with a seriously frightening creature this week, after it lunged at his wife from underneath their car. A disturbing video captures the moment a rabid bobcat attacks a North Carolina woman—and the moment her husband grabs it off her and throws it through the air. Kristi and Happy Wade of Burgaw were walking to their SUV to take their cat to the vet the morning of April 9 when the growling animal ran across the street and attacked, WIS-TVreports. After throwing it several feet, Happy Wade eventually shot it after it ran into the couple’s garage and then continued to charge, ABC 11 reports. A neighbor who had been jogging by at the time stopped to help and called 911. Video of the incident is simply unbelievable. https://twitter.com/nojumper/status/1383145940807163904?s=20 The bobcat was injured by Wade and later euthanized by local law enforcement.  An autopsy revealed that the animal was indeed rabid, and the family has been undergoing treatment for their numerous bite wounds.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week