Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
#SC moves step closer to making elections private domain of corps
1 view
Skip to first unread message
3026 Dead
Jun 22, 2012, 8:10:35 PM6/22/12
to
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/22/in-anti-union-decision-supreme-
court-limits-use-of-special-political-fees/
In major anti-union decision, Supreme Court limits use of special
political fees
By Muriel Kane
Friday, June 22, 2012 19:16 EDT
In a case regarded as a major victory for anti-union forces, the Supreme
Court ruled on Thursday that an emergency fee imposed by the Service
Employee International Union in 2005 on all California state employees
was illegal.
The special assessment was required off all state employees represented
by SEIU, including both union members and 28,000 non-union members who
normally pay a smaller annual fee. The Court found the assessment to have
been an “indefensible” violation of the First Amendment rights of the non-
members because it forced them into “compelled speech and compelled
association.”
According to Alternet, this decision has handed conservatives an anti-
union measure they have long sought but have been unable to achieve by
political means. In California, for example, a special election involving
the issue in 2005 resulted in the defeat of Prop. 75 by 500,000 votes.
During a conference call on Friday, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
expressed his disappointment, adding, “It’s a very narrow decision, which
is the only good thing I can say about it.”
Trumka noted that “we weren’t surprised by it at all because it’s the
Supreme Court.” He called it “ironic that when it comes to businesses the
Supreme Court says you cannot do anything to hamper the First Amendment
rights of corporations” but that the Court never seems to have the same
sensitivity to the First Amendment rights of workers.
Trumka’s complaint about the Court’s concern for “the first Amendment
rights of corporations” was apparently intended as a reference to the
Citizens United decision, which removed restrictions on corporate
political spending.
He may have been mistaken, however, in referring to the decision as a
narrow one. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito went on
to state ominously, “Closely related to compelled speech and compelled
association is compelled funding of the speech of other private speakers
or groups.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg sided with the decision
of the conservative majority but also accused them of judicial activism
for using the case to raise these additional First Amendment issues that
were not in the original lawsuit.
Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan were the only justices who dissented from
the decision, on the grounds that the newly-required opt-out process
would impose a burden on unions engaged in pollitical battles and would
cost them both time and money.
Drawing by DonkeyHotey via Flickr
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
court-limits-use-of-special-political-fees/
In major anti-union decision, Supreme Court limits use of special
political fees
By Muriel Kane
Friday, June 22, 2012 19:16 EDT
In a case regarded as a major victory for anti-union forces, the Supreme
Court ruled on Thursday that an emergency fee imposed by the Service
Employee International Union in 2005 on all California state employees
was illegal.
The special assessment was required off all state employees represented
by SEIU, including both union members and 28,000 non-union members who
normally pay a smaller annual fee. The Court found the assessment to have
been an “indefensible” violation of the First Amendment rights of the non-
members because it forced them into “compelled speech and compelled
association.”
According to Alternet, this decision has handed conservatives an anti-
union measure they have long sought but have been unable to achieve by
political means. In California, for example, a special election involving
the issue in 2005 resulted in the defeat of Prop. 75 by 500,000 votes.
During a conference call on Friday, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka
expressed his disappointment, adding, “It’s a very narrow decision, which
is the only good thing I can say about it.”
Trumka noted that “we weren’t surprised by it at all because it’s the
Supreme Court.” He called it “ironic that when it comes to businesses the
Supreme Court says you cannot do anything to hamper the First Amendment
rights of corporations” but that the Court never seems to have the same
sensitivity to the First Amendment rights of workers.
Trumka’s complaint about the Court’s concern for “the first Amendment
rights of corporations” was apparently intended as a reference to the
Citizens United decision, which removed restrictions on corporate
political spending.
He may have been mistaken, however, in referring to the decision as a
narrow one. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito went on
to state ominously, “Closely related to compelled speech and compelled
association is compelled funding of the speech of other private speakers
or groups.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg sided with the decision
of the conservative majority but also accused them of judicial activism
for using the case to raise these additional First Amendment issues that
were not in the original lawsuit.
Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan were the only justices who dissented from
the decision, on the grounds that the newly-required opt-out process
would impose a burden on unions engaged in pollitical battles and would
cost them both time and money.
Drawing by DonkeyHotey via Flickr
--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Steve
Jun 22, 2012, 8:22:55 PM6/22/12
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:10:35 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/22/in-anti-union-decision-supreme-
>court-limits-use-of-special-political-fees/
>
>In major anti-union decision, Supreme Court limits use of special
>political fees
>By Muriel Kane
>Friday, June 22, 2012 19:16 EDT
>
>
>In a case regarded as a major victory for anti-union forces, the Supreme
>Court ruled on Thursday that an emergency fee imposed by the Service
>Employee International Union in 2005 on all California state employees
>was illegal.
<ROTFL> So a bunch of leftists discover that they don't have a right
to other people's money just because they want it...
wrote:
>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/22/in-anti-union-decision-supreme-
>court-limits-use-of-special-political-fees/
>
>In major anti-union decision, Supreme Court limits use of special
>political fees
>By Muriel Kane
>Friday, June 22, 2012 19:16 EDT
>
>
>In a case regarded as a major victory for anti-union forces, the Supreme
>Court ruled on Thursday that an emergency fee imposed by the Service
>Employee International Union in 2005 on all California state employees
>was illegal.
to other people's money just because they want it...
David Hartung
Jun 22, 2012, 10:53:32 PM6/22/12
to
On 06/22/2012 07:10 PM, 3026 Dead wrote:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/22/in-anti-union-decision-supreme-
> court-limits-use-of-special-political-fees/
>
> In major anti-union decision, Supreme Court limits use of special
> political fees
> By Muriel Kane
> Friday, June 22, 2012 19:16 EDT
>
>
> In a case regarded as a major victory for anti-union forces, the Supreme
> Court ruled on Thursday that an emergency fee imposed by the Service
> Employee International Union in 2005 on all California state employees
> was illegal.
Good for the Supreme Court.
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/22/in-anti-union-decision-supreme-
> court-limits-use-of-special-political-fees/
>
> In major anti-union decision, Supreme Court limits use of special
> political fees
> By Muriel Kane
> Friday, June 22, 2012 19:16 EDT
>
>
> In a case regarded as a major victory for anti-union forces, the Supreme
> Court ruled on Thursday that an emergency fee imposed by the Service
> Employee International Union in 2005 on all California state employees
> was illegal.
Phlip
Jun 22, 2012, 11:33:45 PM6/22/12
to
Why do you hate the Free Market??
3026 Dead
Jun 22, 2012, 11:44:00 PM6/22/12
to
David Hartung
Jun 22, 2012, 11:57:48 PM6/22/12
to
3026 Dead
Jun 23, 2012, 12:47:14 AM6/23/12
to
understanding of the subject.
Message has been deleted
Steve
Jun 23, 2012, 5:02:31 AM6/23/12
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 03:44:00 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
The leftist loons hate it that they can't get their greedy fingers on
other people's money. They think they should have it because they
want it.
wrote:
other people's money. They think they should have it because they
want it.
Kurt Nicklas
Jun 23, 2012, 5:48:54 AM6/23/12
to
On Jun 23, 5:02 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 03:44:00 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com>
Gotta feel for slime like Jamieson though...there he is: end of his
life, nothing to show for it, can't grow up but can't help growing
old, no degree, rages against 'the machine' that frustrated his
ambitions, wife gone, trailer in hock and can't even vote in the
elections he claims to care so very much about.
Poor lil boy.
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 03:44:00 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com>
life, nothing to show for it, can't grow up but can't help growing
old, no degree, rages against 'the machine' that frustrated his
ambitions, wife gone, trailer in hock and can't even vote in the
elections he claims to care so very much about.
Poor lil boy.
David Hartung
Jun 23, 2012, 7:07:43 AM6/23/12
to
the money of non-union employees to use for political purposes. In
essence the Court has said that if the Union wants that money, they must
ask for it. How is this fascism?
Steve
Jun 23, 2012, 7:44:09 AM6/23/12
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:07:43 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:
Fascism is just a term the leftists use when they don't get their way.
wrote:
0 new messages