Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the past 40+ years, the SCOTUS (and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in SF) have been the surrogate go-to legislative branch of the left. In response, rather than legislate, the Legislative branch has all but, abrogated its responsibility, allowing key issues to be decided by the SCOTUS.
Now that the SCOTUS balance is beginning to shift a bit to the right, watch the left go nuts in their efforts to distance themselves from judicial activism and uphold the separation of the Judiciary and Legislative branches of government.
But they should have a completely different wage, work hours, vacation schedule, safety protocol, health insurance, and retirement plan as well.
Can't have it both ways. Unions have fought and paid for worker's benefits. Don't pay to belong is fine, but then you are in a right to work situation where the pay is minimum wage, the hours are long, and benefits are zilch. Come to Tennessee where they fought to keep unions out. It worked well. Average wage is peanuts, there are NO holidays, no overtime, no bennies, etc. You want to increase your pay check? You work more hours. Simple.
Unions seize jobs that don't belong to them.
The reason unions have fallen out of favor is because they feed at the Democrat's trough.
Working people realize that a make-work public project, the sort that requires union contractors, is just a money laundering scheme for Democrats.
I wish you were right. The right of judicial review was established in 1801 in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. Unfortunately the Republicans are using this to disestablish New Deal legislation.
Marbury v. Madison is the precedent of precedents.
Yeah the Court not the constitution then asserted the judiciary has the power of judicial review and never really asserted or exercised it again for like 50 years so it slid by. Fast forward to more recent times and the Court has went to town exercising judicial review and no one really questions it now because it was asserted by the Court a long time ago and wasn't abused previously.
Congress has a lot of constitutional authority to reign in the judiciary but hasn't exercised it. Judicial review can cut both ways but liberal judges seem to be the most activist and least originalist. That's my real complaint almost no judges are really originalist. Scalia was the minimum not the most originalist a judge should be.
Whether I or anyone else likes it or not, an actual originalist would not rule for school desegregation since that was not the original understanding of the 14th amendment, would've stuck down the civil rights Act of 1964 (not the original meaning of commerce clause) , not approved gay marriage etc.
Incorrect. Mandatorily taking money from those who do not want union representation is outright theft.
Indeed
Just imagine if corporations decided to take a portion of their employees money (picture "voluntary" United Way contributions) and giving it to conservative causes, groups, and politicians.
Yet that is exactly what unions have done for decades giving to the Democrats and in more recent years, other leftist groups/causes.
I make this observation based two recent cases, Citizens United and Janus v. AFSCME.
Your observations are differently twisted and devoid of the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
Citizens United has taken a legal tool which protects individuals from liability and created a person. This was decided in this way not because of original intent but the evolution of the corporation away from it's original intent for political purposes.
It did no such thing. There's 200 years of case law before Citizens United.
A corporation was never a legal person until Dartmouth v Woodward. The chief justice of the US Supreme Court at the time was Marshall, who said:
A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.
Which brings us to Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53 (1820)
Remember that prior to the 14th Amendment, the US Constitution only applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the States, who were free to establish any religion they wanted and ban any they didn't want.
Some States did, some States didn't.
Churches established taxation districts. You paid a tax annually to the church in your district whether you wanted to or not, whether you were a member of that church or not, and whether you subscribed to that particular religious sect or not.
If you didn't pay the tax, you were haled before an ecclesiastical court, who had the power and authority to seize your assets and property and sell them off to pay the tax.
Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply. The court ruled that the factory benefits in the same way an individual benefits from any tax, and so the tax must be paid.
That leads to Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).
The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.
There were similar rulings in other States.
While the 14th Amendment put the kibosh on church tax districts in all States, once the US Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Amendment applied to corporations, it opened the door for all other Amendments to be applied corporations.
You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution or its Amendments can be applied.
Either they all apply, or none apply.
Citizens United is the culmination of 200 years of very bad case law, starting with Marshal's decision in Dartmouth v Woodward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
Janus v. AFSCME deprives unions of their rights to speak as organizations of people and not as legal tools. The Supreme Court has chosen to deprive unions of the funds needed to speak as loudly as the corporations by twisting the right of Mark Janus not to speak into a device of their own creation.
Again, you misunderstand.
Corporations are using their money to fund campaigns.
Unions are not using their money, they're using the money of union members, who are compelled to contribute monies to the union. To compel a union member to contribute money, then use that money to advocate a position contrary to that held by the union member is grotesque.
If I strong-armed you into giving me money to advocate a position you were totally against, you'd be frothing at the mouth until you fell over backwards in your own feces. That's exactly what unions are doing.
Your observations are differently twisted and devoid of the facts.
It did no such thing. There's 200 years of case law before Citizens United.
A corporation was never a legal person until Dartmouth v Woodward. The chief justice of the US Supreme Court at the time was Marshall, who said:
A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.
Which brings us to Amesbury Nail Factory Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 53 (1820)
Remember that prior to the 14th Amendment, the US Constitution only applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the States, who were free to establish any religion they wanted and ban any they didn't want.
Some States did, some States didn't.
Churches established taxation districts. You paid a tax annually to the church in your district whether you wanted to or not, whether you were a member of that church or not, and whether you subscribed to that particular religious sect or not.
If you didn't pay the tax, you were haled before an ecclesiastical court, who had the power and authority to seize your assets and property and sell them off to pay the tax.
Amesbury argued that the nail factory had no soul and so the tax didn't apply. The court ruled that the factory benefits in the same way an individual benefits from any tax, and so the tax must be paid.
That leads to Goodell Mfg. Co. v. Trask, 28 Mass. (1831).
The argument here was that since none of the shareholders lived in the church parish, the company could not be taxed. The court ruled that "a corporation is an independent legal person" and subject to the tax.
There were similar rulings in other States.
While the 14th Amendment put the kibosh on church tax districts in all States, once the US Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Amendment applied to corporations, it opened the door for all other Amendments to be applied corporations.
You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution or its Amendments can be applied.
Either they all apply, or none apply.
Citizens United is the culmination of 200 years of very bad case law, starting with Marshal's decision in Dartmouth v Woodward.
You are probably siting the cases that were sited by the majority opinion. It's important to note at this point that the Koch brothers have been funding the PAC called Citizens United since 1988. I believe that the Citizens United v. FEC is Machiavellian in nature. The cases were most probably cherry picked and taken out of context but used to give those justices with an inclination to allow a flood of money into campaigns to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Again, you misunderstand.
Corporations are using their money to fund campaigns.
Unions are not using their money, they're using the money of union members, who are compelled to contribute monies to the union. To compel a union member to contribute money, then use that money to advocate a position contrary to that held by the union member is grotesque.
If I strong-armed you into giving me money to advocate a position you were totally against, you'd be frothing at the mouth until you fell over backwards in your own feces. That's exactly what unions are doing.
Would this not then apply to stockholders who have a liberal bias? If money is speech how is it not unlawful to deprive unions their free speech since there is precedent. This ruling was clearly done to deprive public service unions of the funds that would be used to fight corporate money. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education has been the precedent for 41 years. It doesn't take much more than a will to do so to call the Abood decision flawed. Once again the Koch brothers were involved in bringing this to court.
It's important to note that our campaign system doesn't need an infusion of money. The money only thwarts the will of the people.
First the SCOTUS isn't a branch of government, the Federal Judiciary is. Second, because you don't like a couple of decisions they've made, they're no longer a independent branch of government. Sorry, no sale.
Time for you to grow up and deal with reality.
Yeah, know your poster. Use the ignore feature to minimize wasted time.
The reason unions have fallen out of favor is because they feed at the Democrat's trough.
Working people realize that a make-work public project, the sort that requires union contractors, is just a money laundering scheme for Democrats.
Important to differentiate between public and private unions.
The public unions are doing pretty well, hell just look at the power the Chicago police union has, they almost got a cop off a murder charge without even so much as a trial and the mayor and his staff went along with the payoff.
The private unions have lost so many members due to off-shoring that they're a shadow of their former self.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
