Link to decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

In reasonably plain English: This is a case about whether government employees who are represented by a union to which they do not belong can be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The plaintiff in this case, an Illinois state employee, argued that having to pay the fees violates the First Amendment. Today the Court agreed, ruling for the employee and against the union.

5-4. Sotomayor dissents. Kagan dissents, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

quote:

3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer
extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First
Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting
employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support
the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither
an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector
union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt
be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively
consents to pay.

Hooray! A great win.
“JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.”

MORE WINNING!

Cutting off another source of Democrat funding. I like it!

This is Huuuuuge. I've been waiting for this decision/

Yes this is a good win.

It's sad the Supreme Court has to rule on common sense.

I'm so tired of winning.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nah!

Wonderful! Check out the National Education Association's web site this morning. Oh my, the wailing and the gnashing of tooths.

It makes my heart glad.

I like the results but what troubles me is the division by party inclination.
Yesterday, Prof. Dershowitz said while he doesn't like the policy he agreed with the law on yesterdays Trump Immigration Limits/Ban.
Why can't the SC think along the same lines and just look at the law?

Wait, you mean people shouldn't be forced to support organizations they don't want to join?

(Look, I get it. The unions claim those people are free riders. They are. But too, bad. That is the risk you take when you do something like this.)

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I like the results but what troubles me is the division by party inclination.
Yesterday, Prof. Dershowitz said while he doesn't like the policy he agreed with the law on yesterdays Trump Immigration Limits/Ban.
Why can't the SC think along the same lines and just look at the law?

Because most people aren't like Dershowitz and can't separate their policy preferences from interpreting the law. Scalia was pretty good at it. Dershowitz is too. I rarely agree with him on policy, but he is intellectually honest.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I like the results but what troubles me is the division by party inclination.
Yesterday, Prof. Dershowitz said while he doesn't like the policy he agreed with the law on yesterdays Trump Immigration Limits/Ban.
Why can't the SC think along the same lines and just look at the law?

Why do you think they got the job, and Dershowitz didn’t?

Scalia type judges believe they are not there to make policy choices, but to decide Constitutional issues, i.e. is this within the power of Congress, or an “establishment of religion,” or “an infringement...”

Progressive judges believe progressive policies are Constitutional, unprogressive ones are not.

One less funding source for leftists.

I believe the fees are now an Opt-in not an Opt-out.

quote:

Progressive judges believe progressive policies are Constitutional, unprogressive ones are not.

As a retired State employee, I wonder where I can get my retroactive reimbursement?

Don

thanks Mr Janus !

n a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Janus in his First Amendment lawsuit against the AFSCME Council 31.

The decision means Janus, a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, no longer has to pay what the union calls "fair share" fees for AFSCME's representation of him.


The decision affects about five million public employees in 22 states without right-to-work laws. They now will be able to join Janus in deciding for themselves whether they want to pay union fees. Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the other states that are impacted

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump's appointee to the bench, cast the decisive vote.

Wednesday's ruling nullifies a 41-year-old precedent established in Abood vs. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court then upheld union fees. Alito said that opinion was wrong.


https://www.paintsvilleherald....4d-16e7b58025ec.html

quote:

States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them.

4 Justices voting against freedom.Better be glad Clinton never got to nominate a Justice.This shows how perilously close we were and still are,
vulnerable to having our most cherished freedoms removed.

quote:

Originally posted by dsmack:
As a retired State employee, I wonder where I can get my retroactive reimbursement?

Don

Actually, why isn’t this an option? How does the law apply to situations like this?

The significance and importance of Trump's election couldn't be more clear with these last few days. I wonder if any one of these never trumpers can admit that fact to himself even now.