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: Clandestine Cabal Seeks to Hide Info in Jeffrey Epstein Case

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 Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?

  • Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?  

  • 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, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Internet Giant’s Election Meddling Exposed by New Research

This is the sort of power that we wouldn’t grant to even the most benevolent or pragmatic person, so why has America allowed a corporation such gravity?

Published

on

Google

While the left decried the possibility of Russian “election meddling” until they were blue in the face back in 2016, their friends over at Google were taking lessons. You see, the internet itself exists parallel to our “real world” in many ways.  We use this channel of information often for convenience, paying bills and ordering goods and services through the click of a mouse or the tap of a finger.  Data is stored, packed, sent, received, and acted upon just as though we had committed these acts in the real world, leading many to tout the internet as some sort fo “new reality”. This is dangerous thinking, folks, given that the internet itself is a privately controlled space.  Enormous tech companies such as Google and Facebook are the de facto kings of the world wide web, steering more traffic between them than outside of their purview.  This has granted companies such as these an extraordinarily precarious grip on public knowledge and what was once the freedom of information. Just how monopolistic are these private companies?  A new research study shows that Google actually influenced the American 2018 midterms, flipping congressional districts. New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country. The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge. The research follows a previous study conducted…

Continue Reading

News

Ocasio-Cortez Continues Radical Leftist Lurch with Gun-Grab Propaganda

An armed American public is certainly capable of “killing people”, as AOC tweeted, but if those people are a hostile, authoritarian force, her proposal would sentence the American people to death…or worse.

Published

on

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

There is little doubt that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing the democratic party hard to the left. The 28 year old bartender-turned-Congresswoman has been a left-leaning fireball of vitriol from the moment that she stepped onto the national political scene, often gaslighting herself by playing up her radical nature on social media in order to combat the “trolls” that she so often demeans. With 2020 on the horizon, and one of the leading contenders for the democratic nomination already having admitted to eating “regenerative”, magical dirt, the sort of insanity that AOC injects into Washington DC may seem par for the course. The reality is, however, that it is dangerous. With Ocasio-Cortez capturing the imaginations of young democrats everywhere, 2020 candidates will likely need to appease her own fringe base in order to gather the necessary votes to make an impact on the race.  And that means, unfortunately, that the young Congresswoman’s anti-constitutional stance on firearms could go mainstream. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggests Congress should ban “semiautos, & high cap mags.” She also called for a ban on bump stocks, which the Department of Justice banned in December 2018. AOC was reacting to a bizarre incident at an Indiana school where teachers were shot by police with air pistols during an active shooter drill. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1108908752865054720 AOC’s call to ban “semiautos” is particularly disturbing, considering that a vast majority of all weapons in America are semi-automatic, meaning that one pull of the trigger will send one round through the barrel. Furthermore, the insinuation that guns could be used to “kill people” isn’t new and horrific, despite how bluntly AOC included the phrase in her tweet. We must remember that the Second Amendment, and the firearms that it protects, are the nation’s insurance policy against tyranny from both foreign and domestic sources.  Disarming the American people, even…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend