Posted on 06/29/2022 7:16:30 AM PDT by Republicans 2016 2020
The vote is 5-4. Clarence Thomas dissents, joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
The is the second and final opinion of the day.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Thomas’ dissent itself is longer than the actual decision... and he calls the majority opinion ‘contrived’ (if I can be so bold as to use a single word to sum up a quite spirited argument).
Would be nice if you gave us a more informative article to describe the case???
...and they (Texas, in this case) cannot do so. The majority decided that states gives up some of their sovereignty involving matters of the national defense (how that applies to guaranteeing that returning vets get their jobs back when they return is a bit odd, but that's kinda Thomas' jumping off point for his dissent).
If you believe a cop who left for war, came back with some limitations from war injury and thus was fired from his job, can't sue the state to get his job back or get money for being wrongly fired ..... but a state should shell out "reparations" to people who were never slaves because they've lived their whole lives in the best country in the world ... you might be a Democrat.
My National Guard unit was activated from 2002 to 2004. The civilian job I held was a supervisor in maintenance for a Class 1 railroad (RR). Upon returning, I was immediately demoted back to a wrench turner because the RR didn’t want ‘military style’ leadership infecting their culture. I did not know about this federal protection at the time or something would have been done. By the time I was informed that the move was illegal, it was too late. The next year, I did get my prior position back. All in all the question is, how many returning vets have gone through this? And I am a witness to how a negative return can be on the emotions after serving your nation.
You have it backwards: the liberal justices (joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh) did hold that the plaintiff can sue the state to get his job back.
Personally, I have great sympathy for the injured war veteran in this case, but I don’t believe that Congress should have the power to impose a demand like this on the states.
It’s horrible to see heroes like you treated in this way. The phrase “there oughta be a law” would seem to apply... but Constitutionally, this may be a case in which the states need to do it themselves (though after today, all state employees appear to be covered by what Congress did).
“I don’t believe that Congress should have the power to impose a demand like this on the states”
Well, then the question is: if Congress cannot limit the sovereign immunity of the states, then who can?
We cannot very well trust the states to do it themselves, since it that would be a conflict of interests. So that leaves some branch of the federal government to do it, either Congress, the courts, or the Executive. It can hardly be in line with the functions of the Executive, so if it’s not Congress, then the federal courts have to set the limits, and that seems to me to be a worse idea than having Congress do it.
Maybe the better question is this: where does Congress get the power to limit the rights of states on matters not expressly outlined in the Constitution? But of course the 9th and 10th amendments have been trampled upon for decades.
Thanks for clarifying.
“where does Congress get the power to limit the rights of states on matters not expressly outlined in the Constitution?”
What is not “expressly outlined” in the Constitution is any notion of “sovereign immunity” at all. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the only relevant rights specified are the right of the citizens to petition the government for redress, and the right of the citizens to due process. So if we go by the Constitution alone, the states have no sovereign immunity at all, since sovereign immunity is not a “state right”, but in fact a LIMIT on the citizens’ rights.
Thanks for posting the link to the opinion in (5): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
After the first several pages I got the gist and went looking for the dissent. (non-lawyer).
For others interested in Thomas and the minority’s dissent, it begins on page 23 of the opinion ( same link ).
In my reading, they say it lessens the sovereignity of states in ways that are not in the contract.
I think the dissent is correct, but what bunch of idiots in the state bureaucracy would not find this vet a job, and thereby let a lawsuit create a ruling which will hurt all the states. Maybe the state AG office should have advised the DPS better, or gotten the Gov to find him another job.
Here's a link to the decision itself.
I wouldn’t think as many nowadays. Part of premob/demob, and maybe even the yearly list of classes, includes a class on USERRA or whatever the specific act is that guarantees your return to employment and continuance of position / tenure / etc.
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.