Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented from the opinion. "If the union's basic administrative system does not violate the Constitution, then how could its special assessment have done so?" Breyer said.
Because special is different from basic. I don't see how hard that logic is.
Liberals, when have zero intellectual or logical reasoning to stand on, loooove to pretend that their "rhetorical" questions make a valid point of some kind, and that there is no actual answer other than to concede a point to them. A favorite sport of mine is simply answering the question, clearly and truthfully, and watch their mouths drop. (Then they usually yell and storm off, LOL.) Here, I would respond...
"The special assessment could violate the Constitution while their administrative system does not just as an employee can embezzle from his employer. The employee's administrative duties are valid, but the way he is drawing his "extra pay" is not legal or valid. Does that help?"