SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:22 am

I have periodically been posting stuff about SCOTUS in other threads...I thought I'd create one strictly for it...we should be getting some important rulings soon.


Right now they are doing a 4th amendment case where a gal had a rental car and let her friend drive it (though the guy wasn't listed as a driver on the rental forms). The dude got pulled over and cops searched the car and found a bunch of illegal stuff. They didn't have a warrant. The court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the police action.


"The Fourth Amendment protects people from suspicionless searches of places and effects in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle reasonably expect privacy in the vehicle where he has the renter's permission to drive the vehicle but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?"




Alito was leading the questioning and it seemed like he was supporting the right of the police to do a search when Gorsuch interjected:

"Mr. Faigin, you keep saying that," Gorsuch said, "but as a matter of property law, now and forever, a possessor would have a right to exclude other people but for those with better title. So someone in this position would have a right, I think you'd agree, to exclude someone who's attempting to get in the car to hijack it, carjack it. You'd also have a right to throw out a hitchhiker who had overstayed his welcome....I think you're having to argue that the government has a special license that doesn't exist for any other stranger to the car."






This is already the 3rd or 4th time Gorsuch is butting heads with the other R's on the court because he is coming from a much more libertarian viewpoint. The dude is quickly turning into my favorite Justice. I hope we get more like him.



more details can be found: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/neil- ... butt-heads
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:47 pm

Big case will be heard soon -- on Feb 26th a case will decide if all workers at a unionized facility can be forced to pay union dues even if they don't want to join the union.


A $45 monthly fee could end up costing big labor billions. Public unions are getting nervous, while those who don’t like how they operate are claiming the free lunch may be over soon.

Petitioner Mark Janus works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and didn’t like that a certain amount was deducted from his paycheck — he didn’t believe he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the state. He didn’t agree with the 1.3 million-member AFSCME union’s politics, and so believed, under the First Amendment, he couldn’t be forced to contribute.

In his court filing, Janus quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02 ... ecide.html






This part pretty much summarizes my feeling:

For his part, Napolitano can’t summon up too much sympathy for these unions, since they’ve gotten themselves into this situation. As he puts it, “some labor leaders believe this will be almost a fatal blow — you know what, that’s their fault….No one is saying that labor unions [shouldn’t] exist; they just have to make themselves attractive so that people join voluntarily, rather than under the state’s compulsion.”
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:02 pm

Nobody should be compelled to join a union. However, a non-union employee should not benefit from the union's collective bargaining. They do. And then they sue because the union makes political contributions they don't like.

Solution:

1. Union Membership is voluntary. But no dues paid = no inclusion in collective bargaining agreement. Non-union employees would become second-class employees.

2. Unions are barred from making contributions to political candidates....so are companies. i.e. Citizens United is overturned.

Deal?


Edit: Scratch that. You don't wanna pay dues, go work somewhere else.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9808
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:32 pm

IMO an employment contract is solely between the employer (who traded money) and the employee (who trades labor). It isn’t between one employee and the rest of the employees in any form.


Ultimately it will be seen through the Supreme Court ruling if other employees have a coercive right into the contract between individual laborer and owner
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:27 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:IMO an employment contract is solely between the employer (who traded money) and the employee (who trades labor). It isn’t between one employee and the rest of the employees in any form.


Ultimately it will be seen through the Supreme Court ruling if other employees have a coercive right into the contract between individual laborer and owner

They already did and it went the way you'd expect.

I think the fact that he's a government employee is the twist here.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9808
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 513 times


post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: acmillis, Pirate Life and 9 guests