Supreme Court's tie vote upholds public employee fees for union

[Crabtownboy]

The Supreme Court announced a tie vote today in what labor law experts had called a "life-or-death" case for public employee unions.

The split decision preserves a long-standing rule that requires about half of the nation's teachers, transit workers and other public employees to pay a "fair share fee" to support their union.

The tie vote will come as a relief to union officials who feared the conservative court was on the brink of striking down the pro-union laws that authorized these fees.

 

[Don]

"Conservative court"?

 

[Revmitchell]

Forcing people to pay union dues simply because they got a job is unAmerican

 

[Alcott]

A communist court to become more communist before long.

 

[Revmitchell]

The good news is that since it was a tie vote it is not binding on future rulings.

 

[Don]

Seriously, CTB; "conservative court"? You have 3 justices that typically swing conservative; 4 that typically swing liberal; and Kennedy, who is a conservative but has been known to vote liberal. So how is it a "conservative court"? Even if Kennedy voted strictly conservative, the current court would be the epitome of partisan (evenly divided).

So seriously: "conservative court"?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Seriously, CTB; "conservative court"? You have 3 justices that typically swing conservative; 4 that typically swing liberal; and Kennedy, who is a conservative but has been known to vote liberal. So how is it a "conservative court"? Even if Kennedy voted strictly conservative, the current court would be the epitome of partisan (evenly divided).

So seriously: "conservative court"?

Don, I did not write the piece, just copied and pasted it. So you do not consider the Court conservative. Other do. No surprises as there will always be differences of opinion.

 

[Rob_BW]

So federal employees aren't forced to pay union dues, but half of the Supreme Court justices think keeping it mandatory for state or municipal employees is okay?

 

[Don]

Don, I did not write the piece, just copied and pasted it. So you do not consider the Court conservative. Other do. No surprises as there will always be differences of opinion.

Oh, I know. The question really is, how much credence to give to an article that claims "conservative court" when, as I pointed out, at best it's partisan down the middle. Kinda indicates a bias before you really even get into the article, doesn't it?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Oh, I know. The question really is, how much credence to give to an article that claims "conservative court" when, as I pointed out, at best it's partisan down the middle. Kinda indicates a bias before you really even get into the article, doesn't it?

I guess it all depends on what a person believes a conservative or a liberal is and what they do and do not believe.

It is not unlike calling a person a theological conservative or liberal. In different parts of the country the two words can mean very different things.

Same with political philosophies. Where I worked I was considered a liberal. Where my wife worked I was considered right of Attlla the Hun. Figure that one out.