FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/29/2016 1:34:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A years-long process by California teachers to free themselves of the yoke of mandatory dues fees even when the teachers refused to join the unions came up one justice short at the Supreme Court. That justice, of course, was the late Antonin Scalia, who would have almost certainly chosen to affirm the First Amendment and property rights of the plaintiffs. Instead, a 4-4 split at the Supreme Court on Friedrichs v California Teachers Association has the impact of affirming the lower court ruling that kept the requirement to make those payments in place:
BREAKING: Supreme Court "divided equally" in public unions case, the first SCOTUS decision since Scalia's death. https://t.co/4wO05L3CDw
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 29, 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday split 4-4 on a conservative legal challenge to a vital source of funds for organized labor, affirming a lower-court ruling that allowed California to force non-union workers to pay fees to public-employee unions.
The court, shorthanded after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and evenly divided with four liberal and four conservative members, left intact a 1977 legal precedent that allowed such fees, which add up to millions of dollars a year for unions.
A little over a month ago, Carolyn Phenicie predicted this outcome, and reported that the plaintiffs in Friedrichs would have a plan in place if the court split 4-4:
Following oral arguments in early January (read The 74’s coverage from inside the court), many thought Scalia, the potential swing vote in the case, had come down on the side of those arguing against the dues, all but ensuring a 5-4 victory for the plaintiffs. (Read our analysis of how the unions lost three key SCOTUS swing votes)
However, no decision at the court is final until it is announced, so Scalia’s death is likely to lead to a 4-4 tie verdict. The end result of a tied ruling: The high court affirms the lower court’s ruling. In the case of Friedrichs, that would mean the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding the mandatory dues, based on a ruling precedent from the 1970s, would stand. Friedrichs and the other plaintiffs would lose.
Court observers have been debating what happens next with the Friedrichs case, following a likely 4-4 ruling. Late last week, they got their answer. The Center for Individual Rights, the group representing Friedrichs and her fellow teachers, announced Wednesday in the event of a tie, they would officially ask the Supreme Court to reevaluate the case, and re-hear arguments, once a ninth justice has been appointed.
That depends on who appoints the next Supreme Court justice, though. It’s not going to do much good if Michael Garland ends up as Scalia’s successor, for instance. The man appointed by Barack Obama and currently blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate has a history with rulings on unions — and let’s just say he’s no Antonin Scalia:
A former top labor arbiter warned that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, will “push the envelope” on constitutional interpretation to advance liberalism.
Garland ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nation’s highest federal labor arbiter, on 18 of 22 cases and even when he sided with employers he demonstrated “an outlook that is generally favorable to union activity,” according to an analysis from OnLabor.
Peter Schaumber served as an NLRB board member from 2002 to 2010 and witnessed several of his agency’s decisions appear before Garland, the chief justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said that the nominee’s jurisprudence in those cases indicates that he will “significantly tilt the balance of the court” in favor of the regulatory state and ideological liberalism.
“Garland certainly on NLRB issues will defer to the agency even in circumstances that push the envelope,” Schaumber told the Washington Free Beacon. “In some respects [the NLRB] seems like a narrow issue but it says lot. He came down on the wrong side.”
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, you can bet we’ll either see her renominate Garland, or that Senate Republicans will rush to confirm him to prevent her from appointing someone worse, especially if the GOP loses control of the Senate on November 8th. If Ted Cruz wins the GOP nomination and manages to beat Hillary in the general, then the CIR might breathe a little easier with the re-hearing strategy. What about Donald Trump? Will a man who appeals to blue-collar workers on the basis of protectionism be eager to appoint justices who will end up sapping unions of their strength?
Is there any evidence that Donald Trump would appoint judges who would rule against union privileges like compulsory wage confiscation?
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 29, 2016
Let’s just say that CIR’s strategy looks a little like a Hail Mary at this point. Justice Scalia’s wit and wisdom have been missed since the moment of his death, but today the latter is missed in particular.
Just one, ONE more black robbed Marxist and this country is friggin toast!
So the news is a dead justice rather than the four live ones who are leftist rubber stamps regardless of the case or issue?
I think the news is BOTH.
A Dead Justice would have tip the scales against mandatory union fees. That he isn’t here to do it simply shows what we’re left with and the stakes in the 2016 race.
[Just one, ONE more black robbed Marxist and this country is friggin toast!]
We’re there already; economically at a minimum.
I am very, very sad to report. Wish it wasn’t true.
How convenient for the forces on the left.....
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I am afraid that the delay on releasing the 9th District Peruta decision is a direct result of Judge Scalia’s death. Before he died I think that the en banc panel probably invoked the 5-4 ruling in the Heller and figured that if they voted for the Appellant the SCOTUS would take up the case and reverse them.
Now that there will surely be a 4-4 decision if it got to SCOTUS,the ruling was rewritten against Peruta as it would survive the stalemate.
It’s not over. Here is my 6-part series of what to do. Plaintiffs should take RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION and give the dues money to charity instead of union thugs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2678721/posts
SCOTUS is now 50% Jewish, 50% Catholic.
I might be wrong, but I believe this is the first time in US history that there are no Protestant members.
Sad to see; but a lesson for the libs in California that elections do matter.
Uh...wait....unless you voted for a Bush family member who could not pick a SCOTUS justice to save his life.
Nevermind.
Clarence Thomas was picked by George H W Bush
And doesn’t the SCOTUS have disproportionate homosexual representation too, ie: 3 with those strongly rumored proclivities?
Just part of our ongoin fundamental transformation...
RE: “SCOTUS is now 50% Jewish, 50% Catholic.
I might be wrong, but I believe this is the first time in US history that there are no Protestant members.”
Sam Alito was picked by George W Bush.
Clarence Thomas was picked by George H W Bush.
Offsetting those two good picks were Souter and Roberts.
Oh..tie goes to the traitors I guess.
I am not up to speed on the nuances this case so please bear with the following basically first impression.
The Constitution’s silence about labor unions means that this case is uniquely a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue. So if California okayed non-union workers to pay union fees, then such state action is unchecked by the Constitution.
I also saw abstracts of precedent cases which mentioned post-FDR era federal labor laws. But since the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce, evidenced by the following SCOTUS case exerpt, then such vote-winning laws are unconstitutional imo. This is the case regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3).
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Patriots, please bear in mind that everybody needs to get up to speed on the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Until patriots can defend themselves by referencing specific clauses in the Constitution (25-30 pages), the Constitution will continue to be a loose cannon, working for you, but also working against you, particularly when institutionally indoctrinated activist judges interpret it.
Insights, corrections welcome.
Valuable points, but I think these cases often make the case that compulsory dues confiscation for the purpose of promoting someone else’s political speech, is a violation of first ammendment protection of free speech and association.
Doesn’t the first ammendment trump a state’s power to infringe?
Good point !
Enter the 14th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So now Unions can collect a fee and has government supporting them by law. What a communists form of government we have now. Next we will have the toilet makers charge a fee to crap and the government will charge a universal fee.
PATHETIC....Ginsberg, Sotamayer, Kagin, and another idiot declared that it is O.K. to coerce people to pay for things they don’t want....very sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.