Public Unions

What Part of the Janus Ruling Do Unions Not Understand?

The Supreme Court says they can't forcibly collect dues from workers unwilling to pay them, but several unions don't seem to get it.


Gary Waters IKON Images/Newscom

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down longstanding precedent by ruling that public sector unions could not force workers to pay dues if those same workers decline to join the union.

The ruling significantly reshapes the role that public sector unions play in American politics, so it's pretty difficult to imagine that there were any labor unions not watching the case. Yet months later, some unions seem not to have gotten the message.

Take the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 521, a San Jose–based group representing some 40,000 workers in California's Central Valley. It has exclusive collective bargaining rights for workers in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCTA). Like most unions in the pre-Janus days, its contract requires SCVTA employees to pay dues even if they do not choose to join the union, though non-members pay a lower cost "agency fee" instead of full dues.

Those "agency fee" payments were the centerpiece of the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The court held that unions can no longer collect those fees from non-members.

"Public employees are forced to subsi­dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bar­gaining and related activities," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. "We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmem­bers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

Yet for some reason, SEIU Local 521 is still collecting agency fees from SCVTA employees. William Hough, for example, has worked at the SCVTA since 2005 but refrained from joining the union. Now he's the lead plaintiff in a class action suit seeking to stop the union from collecting those fees without nonmembers' consent. He also wants a refund of all agency fees previously collected.

Those refunds could cost the union millions of dollars, says Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is representing Hough and had previously argued on Janus' behalf.

"The Supreme Court finally upheld public sector workers' First Amendment right to choose whether or not to support a union without the threat of being fired," Semmens said in a statement. "Further, the High Court made is clear that fees cannot be collected without a clear waiver of First Amendment rights, something the SEIU never gave Mr. Hough and his colleagues."

California state law allows for the collection of mandatory union dues and agency fees, but the new suit argues that Janus makes those state-level laws unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, unions in Oregon and Massachusetts have recently received cease-and-desist letters from attorneys at the Liberty Justice Center, another law firm involved in the Janus case, threatening lawsuits if the unions do not stop deducting fees from paychecks. In both states, unions have continued deducting the fees because those workers consented to joining the union. But the Liberty Justice Center says that's a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling, which said workers must "clearly and affirmatively" consent to making those payments.

"Any previous authorizations for the deduction of dues or fees that employees made before the Janus decision were based on a choice the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional: become a member and pay dues, or pay fees to a union as a nonmember," the group's cease-and-desist letters read, in part. "Any 'consent' based upon that unconstitutional choice was made under duress, not freely given, and is invalid."

And in Washington state, six workers filed a lawsuit last month saying they tried to exit the Washington Federation of State Employees after the Janus ruling but were told that they had to wait until an "escape period" that lasts just 10 days and won't come around again until next year.

The Washington State Attorney General's office claims the Janus ruling only affects the payment of agency dues by nonmembers. But that ignores union members who would like to become nonmembers to avoid paying dues. And surely the First Amendment should apply year-round.

"I just want what's right and fair, and the way the union has treated me since the Janus decision is not right, nor fair," Mike Stone, one of the six plaintiffs, tells Fox News. "I don't want my money being used to support an organization I disagree with."

NEXT: Gorsuch's Record Was More 'Liberal' Than Kennedy's This Term

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What the unions understand is that the Supreme court doesn’t have the power to directly enforce its rulings. If the lower courts refuse to cooperate, actions the Supreme court has declared unconstitutional can continue for years.

    1. Well then FIRE the SCROTUS 9 welfare-mooching parasites, if their rulings mean nothing!!!

    2. Police officers are officers of the court. Local cops haul people into city courts to answer to violations of ordinances. Sheriffs drag people into county courts, etc.

      The Nazgul don’t have any officers to enforce their rulings. So they really have no power at all if nobody gives a shit, because they have no men with guns to do their bidding.

      1. Something Mao something something power something something gun.

      2. Can they issue fines?

        Can they keep compounding those fines if they don’t get paid?

        I suspect (although I could be wrong) that the police will side with “Law and Order (TM)” over blatant lawlessness (allowing the Unions to go “unpunished” for defying the court ruling) because supporting blatant lawlessness strongly weakens their power, or at least their perception of it.

        And I suspect they care more about maintaining that power than fucking over the Judicial Branch in favor of the Unions. Well, as long as it’s not their union, anyway.

        I hope the courts not only order these recalcitrant unions to comply, but assess penalty fines against them for continuing to collect these dues after the Janus ruling.

        1. The only thing police do is enforce their own will. If they don’t give a shit, they don’t enforce it.

          1. I agree, but I think that most of them possess enough simple animal cunning to realize that if they weaken other parts of the system, it will weaken them too.

        2. And I’m not sure actual “police” action would be required for the Court to get, oh, whatever bank the union keeps its money in to comply with a garnishment order, or whatever it’s called when the government seizes money directly from you. Since I suspect the union isn’t keeping it’s dues in cash in a coffee can in the clubhouse. 😉

          Even if “the police” might consider defying the court to not act to enforce whatever penalties the courts decide on for the unions, I doubt Bank of America or Chase or whoever would ignore a direct court order.

        3. Prosecute the unions under RICO and put the officers in prison.

          1. While a pleasant thought, I think there’s a way better chance of the cops going after the union folks than each other.

      3. How many regiments can the Supreme Court field?

        I believe President Andrew Jackson said something to that effect when SCOTUS told him to stop shoving Indians off their lands.

        1. No, what he actually did was point out that there was no one that had either the power or was willing to stop citizens of the US from crossing into Indian territory outside of the US army. Which certainly wasn’t going to be used to round up US citizens on foreign land.

    3. Yet one could confidently expect that lower court judges would be all over any county clerks anywhere in the U.S. that refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

    4. It’s simple enough. These unions have not been sued and lost. That’s usually how these things work: the Supreme Court changes the rules and it takes a few lawsuits around the circuits before everyone starts paying attention.

      The big deal is that when these new decisions are handed down in trial and after appeal, they will almost certainly be effective the date of the Supreme Court decision, and result in huge retroactive payments.

      At least that’s my reading of history. But IANAL.

      1. I should add that this is similar to qualified immunity bullshit, where cops can’t be held to anything obvious unless there has been a similar precedential ruling with circumstances so similar that cops usually get off scot-free. That’s one difference, that non-cop rulings like Janus are effective immediately, and later rulings will be retroactive and expensive.

        That retroactive expense is what makes most people and organizations switch course pretty rapidly. I bet there are some unions around the country already reworking their fees just because of that. Others may need a letter or two from lawyers before falling in line. It is only the big political ones who are think they are too big to fail.

      2. Actually Aaron v. Cooper says that officials are bound to act in accordance with SCOTUS rulings even if they weren’t party to the case and weren’t personally ordered by the court. It was in response to the attempts of segregationist officials to stymie school integration in the wake of Brown v. Board by claiming that they had not personally been issued a court order to integrate. The strategy was to force integrators to file separate lawsuits against every single government body and school official in the south.

        1. Thanks. Did not know that. Too bad qualified immunity doesn’t work that way.

          1. QI is a fucking shitshow.

            Cops should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.

            1. Not just cops, any government official. Yes, it is a Supreme Court-created travesty that allows people who should actually know the law better to have immunity for “honest” mistakes of law. Meanwhile, all of us peons who don’t work for government and don’t pore over minute details of the law can be investigated and prosecuted for even minor violations if the very same officials decide they don’t like you.

              What’s even worse is the “absolute immunity” that prosecutors and judges have, who are supposed to be true experts in the law. It’s really “opposite day” every day in immunity land.

  2. “Those refunds could cost the union millions of dollars, says Patrick Semmens, vice president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which is representing Hough and had previously argued on Janus’ behalf.”

    Well, shucks, maybe they could cut the officers salaries to make up for it.

  3. “California wants 100% clean power by 2045. Wishful thinking?”
    “”It’s not feasible, cost-effectively, with the technologies we have now,” said UC Berkeley energy economist Severin Borenstein. “But 2045 is 27 years from now, and we’re going to develop a lot of new technologies between now and then. And I think that’s what this bill is designed to do.”

    Unicorn ranches need a lot of space.

    1. The idiots don’t think about what happens when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow, or when the wind blows too much and turbines have to be shut down for safety. Where does the power come from then, eh? Fossil fuels or nuclear power. Of course, the extra smart ones may say “batteries!” but they aren’t smart enough to follow that through to see how expensive ad polluting those batteries are to manufacture. That’s one reason why renewables get even more expensive as they take over the grid.

      Of course, California will just import fossil fuel electricity form outside the date, expensively, and continue to brag about being 100% renewable.

      1. “Of course, California will just import fossil fuel electricity form outside the date, expensively, and continue to brag about being 100% renewable.”

        Pretty sure this is what Germany is doing now, and will have to continue doing.

        1. And then Germany is shocked when Russia tells them to shut up or face a week without electricity.

          1. In Times Like These, Econazi Germany is too busy evacuating neighborhoods and digging up bombs dropped on National Socialism to worry about the current failure of Ecological International Socialism.

              1. I have a nascent theory that Hank is Agile Cyborg’s sober alter ego.

                1. I dispute your theory based upon the lack of poetry.

                  1. Hey, I said it’s nascent. I’m still working on it.

                    1. It’s easier to say you’re musing.

                    2. Sorry. It’s in my nature to find the easiest way to do or explain something. It makes me an intolerable dick, and good at my job.

            1. I adore Hank. Always brings a smile to my face to read these.

      2. “Of course, California will just import fossil fuel electricity form outside the date, expensively, and continue to brag about being 100% renewable.”

        Where is Enron when you need it?

        1. Harshly…they were protected by Democrats and prosecuted by Republicans.

      3. California will just import fossil fuel electricity form outside the date

        I know it’d never happen because they’ll want the money, duh, but holy god it would be hilarious if the power companies outside the state all said “no”. Even for just a week.

        These morons need to feel the pain of their policies.

        1. It wouldn’t take a week. Southern California uses almost a million homes worth of electrical power consumption just to pump its water over the Tehachapi Mountains. Look up the Edmonston Pumping Plant.

    2. Because we’ve developed so many revolutionary technologies since 1991. Other than smart phones, I can’t think of any. Certainly none in the field of energy production.

      And before you say it, the Internet already existed in 1991. What caused its expansion was opening it up to the commercial sector and opening of new markets in the aftermath of the cold war. Not technological revolution.

      1. We have actually made some pretty amazing strides in battery technology.

        And if we can come up with one of those neat, light, high energy density, high flow rate batteries that isn’t also horrifyingly poisonous to make, that’ll be fucking awesome.

        But yeah, even at 100% efficiency (not achievable, obviously) it takes a goddamn fuckton of solar panels to power CA. And we’re not even close to 100%, so it’ll take some serious breakthroughs to even advance that much.

        1. What’s the current status of battery development? Last time I was reading up on it, energy density was still seeing only approximately linear growth.

          1. “energy density was still seeing only approximately linear growth.”

            Energy density is important where weight matters. Cars are the most obvious example. But with regards to stand alone grid batteries, it’s a pretty minor concern. $ per kWh storage per effective duty cycle is the important metric there. In other words, you want as much bang for the buck as possible for grid applications.

            All that being said, batteries are still a long way off. Frankly, pumped hydro is the only large scale solution we currently have. It boggles my mind that CA isn’t trying to build pumped hydro stations. Particularly ones, that rely on feeder water to handle most of the supply. There are plenty of areas where there’s not enough water to fund a stand alone hydro dam, but there’s enough to cover 25% of the total pumped hydro usage.

            But fish or wetlands or something prevent us from reacting rationally.

        2. Sorry, Perlchpr, but the problem is orders of magnitude.
          The Tesla Model S is one of the highest density, highest flow batteries on the market. It contains 100kWh. Cost was $12,000. It holds $10 worth of electricity.

          That’s, at most, 3 day’s capacity for a single home or apartment, You need a minimum of 36 hours storage time, so for California’s 36 million people (~12 million households), you would need 6.6 million of them. $79 billion dollars of investment that would have to be repeated every 5 years. That is ignoring all the other power consumers: electric lights, traffic lights, commercial, and industrial electrical use (which is 63%, nearly twice residential usage, according to the EPA) .

          You could probably get it quite a bit cheaper with purpose-built batteries, but no matter what, you are talking a substantial portion of the GDP of the country in annual costs just to maintain the batteries. Battery technology has increased by a bit, but we are orders of magnitude away from making it possible. You can’t actually get batteries to hold much more power because they become explosive just as a matter of form.

          1. Actually, the becoming explosives part is what flow batteries are designed to avoid, by keeping the charged components physically separate.

            The real problem of course, is that until batteries are effectively free, a power source that’s fully reliable is pretty much always going to be cheaper than one that requires batteries, because the batteries are an expense the reliable source doesn’t need.

    3. 31 Dec, 2044

      Only 50% of CA’s electricity is “sustainably generated”.

      I bet the CA regulators blink first, instead of shutting down all the fossil plants in the state.

    4. It’s complete virtue signalling. It seems highly unlikely that California (or anyplace else) will even maintain continuity of government between now and 2045, let alone never have a legislature that goes back on such a promise.

  4. “Big Tobacco’s Global Reach on Social Media”
    “It’s been years since the tobacco industry promised to stop luring young people to smoke cigarettes.
    Philip Morris International says it is “designing a smoke-free future.” British American Tobacco, likewise, claims to be “transforming tobacco” into a safer product.
    But while the Food and Drug Administration weighs plans to cut nicotine in cigarettes, making them less addictive, Big Tobacco has been making the most of the time it still has using social networks to promote its brands around the world.”

    Darn companies are still selling their products!

    1. The hysteria is gayer than the collective faggotry of every past, future, and other-dimensional Tonies.

  5. I doubt any unions “collect” money. More likely the employers collect the money through payroll deduction and then forward it to the unions. I would offer that these employers don’t have the stones to start making the changes pursuant to the Janus decision.

    1. Union might call a strike or sue for breaking their contract. The company would have to pay to defend themselves (and win); cheaper and simpler to let the employees do the lawyering.

      1. Then they should sue the employer as well.

  6. Yet months later, some unions seem not to have gotten the message. … Yet for some reason, SEIU Local 521 is still collecting agency fees from SCVTA employees

    SEIU 521 is collecting these fees because they can. Who is going to stop them? The California government? A government bureaucracy entirely in the pocket of unions?

    Are you serious?

    1. BUT!!! Democracy is in peril when elected government representatives are paid for and beholden to big money interests!


    2. This appears to be the essential design flaw to systems of rules. People only follow the rules they believe in.

    3. I’m sure the DOJ will rush to correct this in just us.

  7. Not surprising. The same thing has been happening with Second Amendment rulings (the Heller and McDonald decisions) for years now. This is how the left rolls. They venerate decisions they agree with as if they were divinely ordained and completely ignore those decisions they don’t like.

    People notice this, and through the political process eventually a backlash occurs. Hence, Trump. In fact, a broad cross section of voters–including so called social conservatives, independents, and libertarian leaning people–cite concerns over SC appointments and the leftist activism of the broader judiciary as their deciding factor in choosing to vote for Trump over HRC in the 2016 election.

    Speaking for myself, I just couldn’t quite do it, so I pulled the lever for Johnson/Weld. However, given the extreme leftward shift of the Democrats and the insanity of their overreaction to a legitimate election loss, and provided that Trump continues to implement policies and obtain results consistent with what he has managed thus far against considerable resistance, I will probably vote for him in 2020. The alternative is completely unacceptable.

    1. Do not be so hopeful about the Republicans, One of our Republican senators here in Colorado, join the lawsuit to stop 3d printer gun plans from being put on the internet.

      1. I have no illusions about Republicans in general, and Cory Gardner is an excellent case in point. Interestingly enough, he takes a favorable position on states’ rights vis-@aacute;-vis marijuana legalization (in a bipartisan tag team with Senator Fauxahontas–go figure). By comparison, though, the Democrats tend to be far worse. They were bad enough when espousing government interference in free markets was their big deal. Since they’ve abandoned all pretense of classical liberalism for the insanity of PC/SJW/identity politics authoritarianism, they’ve become totally unacceptable.

        1. Oops. I blew the html code–mistakenly hit @ instead of &.

    2. They’re stalling until the demographics change.

      The younger generations of Americans hate guns and the immigrants don’t care (and/or will vote for whoever promises the richest cream from the taxpayer teat).

      1. Then there’s no time like the present to poke them in the eye. One does what one can.

      2. Actually, polling suggests that the younger generation may be in favor of expanded gun rights and more gun restrictions (zuh?). Reason did a story on it a few months back. But at the very least, young Americans seem to like guns more than older Americans, so that’s happening.

        1. Polling (the respondents answering questions) is not enough.

          Anyone can say they are in favor of gun rights, but actually doing it is much harder. I do not expect the young to actually follow through on gun rights until it is too late.

  8. So? The same Suprema Corte also ruled that goverments cannot force supermarkets to sell ungainly, smelly, overpriced bags instead of normal, reusable polyethylene bags. This was on the front page of “the” local paper. But go ahead, just try to get a lightweight poly bag within the Austin city limits, why dontcha?

    1. Cuz, RESIST?

    2. To Austin patriots and freedom-lovers: buy your non-biodegradable single-use grocery bags online for far less than the mandated bags sold at the grocery checkout line. (The same places that supply grocery stores and quickie marts in freer parts of the country are happy to sell these bags in bulk to the public.)

      You can leave a carton in your car and never worry about breeding dangerous foodborne bacteria in your reusable bag.

      1. I just wash my reusable bags every time I go to the supermarket.

        Hot water, lots of nitrate based detergent, a second wash cycle to make sure things are properly rinsed.

        That’s lots better for the environment than a couple of plastic bags, right?

  9. The unions will stop stealing the money only after a few union officers get their legs broken by a two by four in the hands of a non-member peacefully protesting the theft.

    Of course, the real federal power is in payroll enforcement at the company level.
    Fraudulent, unauthorized, withholding of wages due to the employee.
    Especially if the company mails the checks/paystubs to the employees. Each and every piece of mail is a crime.

    1. Now those are creative solutions that could explode this nonsense into shrapnel.
      Sue the companies for unauthorized withholding.
      Sue the companies for mail fraud.
      One good suit and we’ll have a more adversarial relationship between companies and unions, which could get very interesting in a world of populism and “democratic socialism.”

      1. The “companies” is the State Govt. Good luck winning that lawsuit in their courts.

        1. Well, for individuals, yes.
          But using the payroll, it will be the feds suing the states, not the employees. Violations of the wage & hours laws, so beloved by the unions.

          1. They’ll just try to run out the clock until Trump is out of office.

  10. I’m guessing the part where it says “No”.

    1. *fistbump*

      1. Right? It was just hanging there, waiting to be said!

  11. Everyone sincerely hopes you take their moralizing legalism very seriously.

  12. “I don’t want my money being used to support an organization that I disagree with.”

    Imagine having to work with some asshole who sues people for being overpaid.

    1. If only the reasoning of that statement were enshrined as law.
      We could stop, individually, supporting the programs we don’t agree with. Afghanistan, the Mid-East, welfare, ag subsidies, etc.
      Libertopia! Or very near.

  13. Happy Labor Day.

  14. If there’s one thing that gets me hotter under the collar than watching a Russian prostitute pee on a billionaire septuagenarian it’s the thought of organizations freely associating to demand for better wages and benefits. This is a crucial nono for conservatarians like me.

    1. If they were “freely associating” there wouldn’t be a problem. Compelled financial support of viewpoints with which some people disagree is certainly not free association.

      That, and your parody needs a lot of work. The “Open Borders Liberaltarian” guy is much funnier.

      1. I’m not trying to be funny. When people at work get together and say that the boss sucks and we should get paid more… why, nothing gets me more upset! Geesch! The nerve!

        1. “I’m not trying to be funny.”

          Then you’ve succeeded. You may now declare victory and withdraw.

    2. You don’t understand. Corporations exploit workers by extracting profit. How else, then, do you manage to justify profit, that is, selling something for more than it costs? I can’t image that you can, therefore, capitalism is evil.

      Also, individuals are too powerless and stupid to negotiate for themselves. Look at me: I followed my dreams, just like everyone told me to, and what happened? I was extremely successful at average academic performance without athletic ability, and I became a moderately paid civil servant. How fair is that, when other people make more than me?

      He’ll, I lost my house in a foreclosure, which wouldn’t have even been an issue with a just allocation of resources, with a guaranteed decent wage and retirement, as opposed to this “free” “market.”

      Workers must collectivize, because, as individuals, they cannot function. Compared to that, how does it matter what 1A rights a person has, much less being forced to support the union that takes care of you, even if you don’t want to? Fuck your, freeloader! If you want some personalized compensation package, then you probably want more than average, and you should be re-educated and/or eaten.

      1. I don’t know if you are trying to employ hyperbole or ridicule so I can only respond forthrightly out of respect for the rest of the libertarian commentariat. Here goes…

        I’m a libertarian anarchist and Trump supporter and thusly support the concept of mutually beneficial working relationships organized by contract law, ok? Once two people start to talk amongst themselves about how their contracts suck they are in violation of the non-disparagement clauses in said contracts. This represents a connundrum and mortal threat to non-state anarchism and thus must be addressed by a cadre of security forces bound to the contractor. As we all know an organization of two or more people to improve upon the dick pic app in Snapchat is laudable and necessary. An organization of two or more people to negotiate how many potatoes they receive per hour of labor is communism and must be stamped out by the ruthless enforcement of contract law which binds us all. Right?

        1. No, all workers should be required to join unions and have their incomes determined by the negotiations of a workers’ council. All other economic arrangements are exploitation and should be banned.

          Why do you hate workers?

  15. Just another proof that unions are crooked, as if their deep connection with organized crime wasn’t enough proof. Unions no longer exist to benefit employees, but instead to provide a nice salary for union leaders, and a lot of political clout. Both should be ELIMINATED by law.

  16. What Part of the Janus Ruling Do Unions Not Understand?

    I’m going to guess it’s the part where they don’t get to do whatever they want. Although I suspect that it may be wilfull obtuseness.

  17. Democrat clansmen enforced Jim Crow in spite of the constitution and federal troops. Marxists are going to keep unions and their power entrenched in spite of the constitution and the courts. Gun grabbers are going to keep attacking the 2nd amendment.

    1. WHITES enforced Jim Crow to the detriment of blacks and the entire country. Let’s not pretend that the saintly Republicans were trying to repeal it.

      1. Wrong.

        The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was first introduced in 1918 by Representative Leonidas C. Dyer, a Republican from St. Louis, Missouri, in the United States House of Representatives as H.R. 11279. It was directed at punishing lynchings and mob violence. The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was re-introduced in subsequent sessions of Congress and passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 26, 1922, but its passage was halted by a filibuster by Senate Democrats…

        From 1882 to 1968, “…nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 asked Congress to pass a federal law.” Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc.

        1. As if anti-lynching laws were going to stop segregation and the wanton killings of blacks. Those bills were proposed to curb mob violence and stop the spectacle that lynchings had become. Somehow we managed to go through 300 years of slavery, 50 more years of the Black Codes, and 50 more years of Jim Crow solely through the efforts of Democrats? Who knew they had so much power.

          1. Well they didn’t exist for the first 300 years or so. But since 1876, the Dems had half of the federal government under their power. During the last 50 years it was thanks to the unions and socialists being at least willing to look the other way about racist policies, and often complicit with them.

            If your beef was with the corrupt Republicans of the 1870s being willing to sell out southern blacks to hold onto power for a bit longer, I’m with you. But that’s some weak tea if you’re trying to exonerate the Dems.

            1. Once the GOP sold out blacks in the 1870’s, there was a significant movement inside the GOP called ‘lily-whitism’ – prominent GOP Prezs in that being Taft and Hoover.

              You gotta be very white to actually think the elephant has any more credibility then the jackass re race in this country.

              1. Funny thing about the ‘lily white movement’– when it names opposition to them there’s not a Democrat to be found.

                You gotta be very well read to actually think the elephant has any more credibility then the jackass re race in this country.

                Not white, just not an ignorant Democrat bumpkin hiding from the crimes of his fellow travelers.

        2. The focus on lynchings was a bit of a diversion by Republicans. The reality is that the major wave of lynchings occurred as Jim Crow was being implemented in the late 19th century. It was REPUBLICAN judges who continually ruled that that was all legal and that there were no possible due process challenges that blacks could ever pursue in federal court. That the 14th amendment was basically a nullity.

          The 2nd version of the KKK was significant in the North and mostly Republican in the North. And the first ‘Southern strategy’ by the GOP was by Herbert Hoover – which failed to get white southerners to vote GOP but which permanently purged blacks from the GOP.

          1. Hey, wouldja lookit that–not a cite to be found.

      2. Yes, it was white Democrat clansmen.

      3. Yeah. About that whole WHITE guilt thing?

        I’m just not feeling it, man. Maybe you guys need a new schtick for this century.

    2. “I only like justices who restrict the Amendments I don’t like and not the Amendments I like.” If you thought I was talking only about gun grabbers, turn that around to yourself and your union busters. This ruling is the exact equivalent of an burdensome restriction on guns.

  18. People will almost always ‘fail to understand’ anything where ‘understanding’ it will cost them money.

    1. Upton Sinclair probably doesn’t like this use of his quote.

      1. That’s why it works.

        He did phrase it better but I had forgotten the exact quote

      2. Of course not. Although, at the present time your predicate seems rather tense.

  19. Take the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 521, a San Jose?based group representing some 40,000 workers in California’s Central Valley. It has exclusive collective bargaining rights for workers in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCTA).

    Explain to me how this ever became a thing.

    1. 1. California governments and unions established a symbiotic relationship.
      2. California governments allowed union representation elections so the employees could ‘freely’ choose to be represented by SEIU. (because the name of the union is irrelevant now)
      3. SEIU sets up payroll deductions for all employees, members or not.
      4. The (theoretically) Supreme Court ruled that not every body had to pay dues.
      5. California unions ignore the federal court ruling.
      6. California courts ignore the federal court ruling.
      7. And here we are, it is a thing.

      1. It has exclusive collective bargaining rights for workers in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCTA).

        I suspect he’s talking about step 1 there, or possibly even a step 0.

    2. It’s really more a surprise it doesn’t happen everywhere. Public service unions are basically a feedback loop – Unions are Democrats and spend money to get them selected, elected Democrats spend more on public service, on and on until finally they run out of taxpayer money.

  20. The Union officials are obviously going to do a fighting retreat. Maybe the hysterics will manage to undo the 2016 election. Maybe there will BE a ‘Blue Wave’ and the Dems can pass legislation in Congress to muddy the waters. Maybe they can run the clock out until retirement and then grab the Union Funds do a runner to someplace without extradition.

    1. Maybe there will BE a ‘Blue Wave’ and the Dems can pass legislation in Congress to muddy the waters.

      It would be amusing (to me) if they did that, and SCOTUS took the case, and thendidn’t even listen to arguments, just turned around and said “We said this was a 1A issue before. ‘Congress shall make no law’. That doesn’t mean ‘Pass a law to try and make it legal’. Rejected.”

  21. I apologize if I missed it, but I’m also looking forward to your criticism of SCOTUS’s decision to allow employers to force workers into binding arbitration. Interesting that SCOTUS found that “being forced into” the Constitutional right of collective bargain was unconstitutional, but being forced into forfeiting one’s Constitutional right to a jury trial for the purpose of employment WAS Constitutional. Boy, these textualists or originalists (or whatever they’re calling themselves now to avoid being called oligarchists) must have read different things before each case.

    1. Where is there any “Constitutional right to a jury for the purpose of employment”?

  22. After Obergefell, states pretty much had to start with gay marriage immediately, no time to correct procedures (e.g., Kentucky requires the marriage license be obtained from the county where the bride resides, which county should they use if two men are marrying?), forms, etc.

    But after Janus, California is dragging its feet. After Heller, Chicago and the District of Columbia drag their feet.

    Just pointing out the disparity. Would have been nice if after Heller, the District had clerks handing out CCW permits like cities had handing out marriage licenses after Obergefell.

    1. Once judges ruled the way they had to under common law/equity, states could very easily have done what they should have done re gay marriage – restore common law marriage (which eliminates all state requirements for a license/permit) and then eliminate the legislated goodies that accrue to married adult couples (which can only occur in a civil licensed marriage not a common-law marriage). They could have even parsed those legislated elements that related to minor children in that relationship (as long as they didn’t then discriminate based on the nature of the adult relationship).

      Could have fixed a lot of things – and eliminated much of the wedding cake baker stuff. Where were the libertarians trying to get the state out of marriage altogether – while still recognizing that there may be some legitimate issues where minor children are concerned? The door is – still – wide open for that. Crickets!

      1. Why did it take 5 minutes to “implement” Obergefell–which I have no problem with–and STILL cannot get a CCW in D.C. years after Heller or get out of being forced to pay public union dues months after Janus?

  23. You can’t teach a one trick pony anything else.

  24. The unions know what’s best for their uneducated, illiterate and Neanderthal workers.
    Who is the SCOTUS to contradict the wise, enlightened and forward thinking union stewards along with their Mafia goons with lead pipes to contradict the ways of nature?
    It is this kind of regressive thinking that might allow the rank and file union members to start thinking for themselves and correctly recognize the unions don’t always have the workers’ best interests at heart.
    Then the American union leadership wouldn’t be necessary and would lose the billions of dollars they have considerately embezzled down through the decades.
    No one wants that.
    That’s not the American way.

  25. Masih Bingung Nyari Situs Agen Poker Online Terpercaya ?
    Sekarang Kalian Tidak Perlu Bingung untuk mencari situs website terpercaya & Proses Deposit Withdrawnya cepat.
    Hanya Di TerbaikQQ Anda bisa Dapatkan Super MEGABONUS Hadia Utama 1 unit CBR 150R dan Hadia Ratusan juta tanpa di undi…
    Masih ada bonus Di terbaikQQ Seperti..
    New member 20%
    Deposit harian 5%
    Bonus Cashback 0.5%
    Bonus Referral 15%
    Segera Daftarkan Diri Anda hanya di
    1 User All Games:
    #Poker Online
    #Ceme Keliling
    #Bandar Ceme
    #Bandar Capsa
    #Super 10
    #OMAHA new
    Masih banyak Promo – Promo Yang Lainnya
    Untuk Info Lebih Lanjut :
    * BBM : DBE11131
    * WA +6281387018979
    * LINE : terbaikqq
    Link web :

  26. But you have to understand the way it all works. When any court cases go against the left, they are, of course, appealed up the chain in hopes of at least delaying what may be the likely decision against it by the Supremes, even if the logic behind the appeal is ludicrous. The delays can be significant, especially when experts can go venue shopping to stop almost any decision or law, no matter how solidly based in established law (or common logic). But even when things are “finally” decided by the supreme court it is always possible to use the same methods to find venues that will simply redefine the law to, at least for the time being, say what they wish. The SEIU will simply act as they wish, hoping that the judge chosen will use some unsupportable pretzel logic to allow them to until the decision must be repeatedly appealed. Because of the size of the SEIU and the number of judges that simply wish the laws they want into being, its quite likely that most complaintants will ultimately just give up.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.