This case (to overturn the requirement for non-union workers in a union environment to pay their “fair share” of dues anyway) might have been decided differently if there were a full complement on the court; instead it got a 4-4 tie, so the challenge to the old ruling fails and the requirement remains.
The irony, if you don’t catch it, is that reducing the power and influence of labor unions is usually dear to the heart of all conservatives everywhere*, including the ones who are refusing to talk to the current nominee. Of course we can only guess how the current nominee would have voted, had he had the chance.
*any individual exceptions are just that, exceptions, in my opinion.
Wasn’t this kind of thing predicted? I thought I read, somewhere in the “leave an empty seat until our partygets the White House” kerfuffle, that due to previous Obama appointments, most of the Federal Appeals Courts are weighted to the left. So when a tie happens, those left-leaning lower court rulings stand.
Is that true? Well the Senate act after they see to many of those rulings stand?
The justices don’t agree with each other on a lockstep republican/democratic basis, but much of it can look that way.
For example - I believe on tax law - Thomas often joins the “liberal” justices.
What would be really ironic is if something happens like Florida - and there is no one to break the tie
Or say Cruz gets the nomination. There is NOT agreement - nor has it ever been fully tested as to whether someone born in a foreign country can be president. Of course John McCain ran, but he had lawyers check and the senate passed some non binding resolution to say he was.
His case is somewhat different that Cruz - who wasn’t born in a Canal Zone military base, but on Canadian soil.
If someone where to challenge - and a Supreme Court In a certain state decided he wasn’t - there could be a problem. This isn’t a democratic or republican issue (other than biases that might come in).
Some challannges were made at the primary level and were either decided in cruz’s favor or more or less punted.
Legal experts are split, but more seem on the Cruz side than non Cruz side.
I don’t know where the irony comes in. Even if the Republicans weren’t making noises about obstructing the nomination (which they seem to be softening on) there was little or no chance for the vacancy to be filled this quick. If you look here you can see how long it takes between nomination and confirmation. You pretty much have to go back to the Taft administration to see a time when it only took a few days. The standard for even non controversial appointments has been a couple of months for many decades.
A little more nuanced. Non-members that benefit from the work of a union such as being covered by a contract negotiated by the union can be forced to pay dues to the union. Those non-members were suing to keep from paying their “fair share fees.”
Even more nuanced than that. They paid only their share (by some calculation) of the dues that went into bargaining, excluding what went into political activities. Of course, in the old days unions and corporations were banned from partisan politics for much the same reason–not every member and not every shareholder would agree with their activities.
Well, considering that Obama is a moderate (he and Reagan gave virtually identical speeches on taxes, for example), and Merrick Garland follows the laws and the Constitution and is as likely to side with Conservatives as he is with Liberals, how could we guess how he’d vote?
I think that not confirming Garland had no effect here. He was nominated just two weeks ago on March 17. Even under the best of circumstances, I can’t see interviews, a vote and swearing-in occurring that quickly.