Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

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: WATCH: Omar Openly Mocks Conservative Christians From Floor of House of Representatives

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

Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

  • Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

  • 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

GAME ON: Trump Gives Bill Barr Complete Authority to Declassify Origins of Russia Probe

HERE WE GO…

John Salvatore

Published

on

President Trump dropped a whopper on Thursday night. Soon enough, the entire world will know the origins of “spying” on the 2016 Trump campaign. Also, how the whole Russia conspiracy fiasco became a thing. Trump tweeted out the following… “Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities…. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131716322369392646?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1131716322369392646&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fhuge-trump-gives-ag-barr-complete-authority-to-declassify-info-on-russia-probe-origins%2F ….during the 2016 Presidential election. The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information…. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131716323485073409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1131716323485073409&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fhuge-trump-gives-ag-barr-complete-authority-to-declassify-info-on-russia-probe-origins%2F ….Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions.” @PressSec https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131716324751826949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1131716324751826949&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fhuge-trump-gives-ag-barr-complete-authority-to-declassify-info-on-russia-probe-origins%2F From Fox News: Trump claims his campaign was the victim of “spying,” though the intelligence community has insisted it acted lawfully in following leads in the Russia investigation. The president had told Fox News earlier in May that he would allow declassification “soon.” He elaborated, “I didn’t want to do it originally because I wanted to wait, because I know what they — you know I’ve seen the way they play. They play very dirty.” Last month, Barr ran into a buzz saw of criticism from Democratic lawmakers and media figures for testifying that “spying did occur” against the Trump campaign in 2016. But despite the backlash, Barr appeared to be referring to intelligence collection that already has been widely reported and confirmed. Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani weighed in: The President @realDonaldTrump made a wise decision to let AG Barr on the docunents. I don’t know for sure but I seriously doubt there’s any…

Continue Reading

News

BOMBSHELL: Obama Admin’s Surveillance Of Reporters Is MUCH Worse Than Anyone Imagined

Kind of a big deal…

John Salvatore

Published

on

The Obama administration was supposed to be the most transparent in American history. Due to inept leadership, the entire country knows that that is not true. Now, it is being reported that the previous administration’s surveillance of reporters is way, way worse than anybody imagined. Here’s the scoop… From Daily Wire: On Thursday, the Columbia Journalism Review reported on the results of a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the Obama Justice Department’s attempts to crack down on leaks to reporters which reveal that the Obama administration’s actions against the press “were broader than previously known.” […] “In 2013, the Justice Department launched a brazen attack on press freedom, issuing sweeping subpoenas for the phone records of the Associated Press and several of its reporters and editors as part of a leak investigation,” the authors report. While those subpoenas have long been understood as “a massive intrusion into newsgathering operations,” they note, the recently unearthed 2014 report reveals that the subpoenas targeting AP “told only part of the story.” The Office of Professional Responsibility’s report on the Obama Justice Department’s subpoenas of AP phone records reveals that “the DOJ’s actions against the AP were broader than previously known, and that the DOJ considered subpoenaing the phone records of other news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News,” the authors explain. The report also reveals “how narrowly the DOJ interprets the Media Guidelines, the agency’s internal rules for obtaining reporters’ data.” Former Attorney General Eric Holder is still the only cabinet-level member in American history to be held in contempt of Congress. He might actually run for president in 2020. But first, Eric wants to do away with the “undemocratic” electoral college. Classic. He tweeted: A good reform measure to support. Change the…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend