This is when I am sad to be politically more to the left, this is also an absurd assertions.
This type of baseless claim is not a reasoned response.
There is no enumerated right to compel others to speak, they explain this in the opinion if you wanted to argue on facts vs. rhetoric.
On some level, I’m as pro-union as they come, and this court judgement STILL merited a quiet “yes!” and I thought about giving a fist-pump.
The fact that unions are highly useful doesn’t change that it’s worth celebrating when the court rules against a large organization taking more money from people in contravention of both the law and the will of those people.
I haven’t actually read the dissent yet, but I’m provisionally willing to believe you’d have to be a partisan idiot to dissent in this. And nothing in the dissent is likely to change my mind.
That said:
(bolding mine)
No, Bricker. Not “the unions”. “The SEIU Local 1000”, in this specific instance.
Did you or did you not say:
How is that “specific”? Seems like a general statement wishing bad tidings upon public sector unions.
If that is specific, I look forward to your explanation. If you cannot explain, I await your apology and retraction. It is certainly poor form to put words into someone else’s mouth like you have. They are certainly incorrect as regards my feelings on this matter.
I also specifically indicated what content of yours I was responding to. If you don’t want your glee at bad thinga generally happening to unions, you shouldn’t make a general statement about bad things happening to unions and finish with “Yippee” or even “Yipppeee!” You should also refrain from subsequently describing yourself as gleeful. When you fail to sufficiently restrain yourself, you introduce those feelings into the discussion.
I assume you are going to continue under the premise that if you assert this completely unsupported claim enough that people will overlook you have ignored every challenge to it?
Cite or new material please.
Let me translate that for you, rat_avatar, and maybe you’ll stop bloviating. The key part of that phrase is “acceptance of the opt-out approach.” This means the opt-out approach had been accepted as the proper framework for Hudson notices. It’s what the law was. It’s what unions based their conduct on.
Now comes this case, and completely unbidden, Alito and gang decide that what this case needs is some brand new “careful application of First Amendment principles.” It was an injustice that was literally crying out to be rectified. Well, not by the folks who actually brought the case. But I’m sure it bugged Samuel Alito.
A reaction from my good friends at Daily Kos.
Offered without comment.
No the question was never addressed in Hudson.
The court was pretty much forced to address it in this case because although the union claimed to offer a “refund” they put up massive barriers to those who did opt-out.
So again, cite the parts of Hudson where they directly addressed opt-in or opt-out.
Is that because the commentary would show what a stupid analogy that is? When was the last time you were compelled to buy stock in a corporation?
Let us look at the majority opinion and explain to me how you would justify infringing on an individual’s freedom of speech as is the practical result of opt-out. Also explain how this reasoning is politically motivated by the majority?
Bricker wasn’t the one who made it about “unions”.
post 18
It was part of the jurisprudence by the time of Hudson. Read Sotomayor’s concurrence, she lays all that out.
And stop confidently harping at me as if you know what you’re talking about.
ETA: Footnote from Hudson:
No, it means precisely what it says. I much prefer my own words in my own mouth, if that’s OK with you…
Well, then, would that mean that unions which operate in states with “Right to work” laws are exempt? I mean, if its all about “force”?
This applies to agency shops and compelled dues, I am not sure how someone would say it would apply if those dues were not compelled.
The Daily Kos is as just about as credible as Rush Limbaugh or any other political shock media property.
Here they intentionally and outright LIE about the nature of the previous decision.
It may have been an outcome of the decision but it is a pure lie to say that was the reason or the intent.
And guess what, opt-out of the union in an agency shop still requires a positive act by the employee.
But once they state that preference why should they be forced to restate that preference again and again and again.
Would it not be logical that had they wished to support the unions political causes they could join the union to indicate a change in their beliefs?
It should also be noted that Hudsen was just using dicta from Street, it was not based on any findings in that case nor was it a finding in Hudsen
And thus from CENTRAL GREEN CO. v. UNITED STATES
“dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding.”
But more importantly the union abused opt-out in this case to injure the employees rights. That is justification to examine the question in light of the 1st amendment claim.
I will keep reading but I see a persuasive reason for opt-out.
And you know this, how, exactly? Have you some special telepathic insight into the minds of the Supremes?
So, rat_avatar, are you abandoning your claim that opt-out wasn’t the established law prior to this case?
Nope, it was NOT a settled matter of law, are you really trying to play the card that SCOTUS is bound by dictum? and that by clarifying or changing or nullifying it they acted as an “activist court”?