With the justice holding the decisive vote remaining silent, a divided Supreme Court sparred Monday over a case that could undermine the financial footing of labor unions that represent government workers.
The justices heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join.
That money gives public-sector unions the political muscle to endorse candidates and run campaign ads – effectively giving them the ability to lobby the public for leaders who will increase their pay.
Many government employees who choose not to join these unions say they shouldn’t be forced to financially support politicians they oppose…
The court split 4-4 the last time it considered the issue in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Gorsuch joined the court in April and has yet to weigh in on union fees, but conservatives hope his swing vote will land on the anti-union side of the debate.
Organized labor is a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Unions strongly opposed Gorsuch’s nomination by President Donald Trump.
The unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia…
A decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 16-1466, is expected by late June.
Notice how the unions just assume free resources should be forcibly appropriated from others to fund their activities, without any ability to restrict the resource glut. To them, that is morally just. They are rabbits, so designed for free resources they just expect to be provided them, and even view it as some sort of moral imperative. If the Supreme Court rules against them, they will see it as a moral affront.
Meanwhile, on the other side, you have the union members, the leftists among whom the unions know are mostly rabbits too. So those union members are programmed to expect free resources in the form of a union fighting for them, and they will not feel any moral imperative to give any resources to the union for its efforts. As a result, if this passes, expect to see a point or two added to every conservative candidate in jurisdictions where these unions are active.
It is a comical state of affairs, which if the winds blow right will strip the democrats of a major source of funding, as the nation continues to head K.
And if the Cucks had their way, President Hillary Clinton would have placed the crucial swing vote on the Supreme Court in the seat rightfully belonging to Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Never forget the treason of the anti-Trumpers.
Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because everything on the left is going down.
At the very minimum, all union charters/policies should be scrubbed of any vague social justice bs and instead declare a firm commitment to core objectives, such as ensuring workplace safety and defending against wrongful dismissal.
One need only look at some of modern union charters to see clear evidence of convergence and pandering to the professional victim groups.
I’m a state worker who is only in the union because I have to pay the dues either way, so I might as well be a member and get the benefits and get to vote against stuff.
From what I picked up at the last information meeting, if the Supreme Court rules against the unions their next move is going to be to try to not let existing members leave – once you join, you’re in as long as you work there.