HEADLINE: Supreme Court Rules Public Sector Unions Can No Longer Extort Union Dues From Workers
REASONING AND IMPACT: The Supreme Court handed down it’s ruling in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, aka Janus.
STORY: The decision was 5-4, along familiar lines, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority.
The State’s extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.
(a) Abood’s holding is inconsistent with standard First Amendment principles.
(1) Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns.
3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay
This is not a narrow decision. It means that virtually all attempts to mandate union membership or “agency fees” for non-members are now illegal. It means that, based on what we saw in Wisconsin, once coercion is removed, public sector unions wither. This is bad news for the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) machine and great news for freedom.
MY THOUGHTS: The decision was not a surprise given the addition of Gorsuch who has read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and understands them. The decision will have the same positive affect fighting for freedom and liberty that the Abood case had in advancing the Marxist/Progressive agenda.
My real question is how would an impartial and educated person whose duty and responsibility is to rule on what is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever cast a vote in the minority in this case. The same question can be asked regarding the travel ban. The Constitution and the law in both cases is very clear.
The answer to my question is that the Marxist/Progressives believe that the ends justify the means. Their goal is take away all individual liberties and force conformity to their collectivist ideas. The minority in this case believes it is just for them to advance their agenda against the freedom of the individual regardless of what the Constitution and the law state. This is what is meant by a living document. The words are ignored, and the personal bias of the individual judge is substituted. The founders intended that the Judicial Branch of government be the weakest branch with the Legislative Branch being the strongest. The Legislative Branch has abdicated their role as strongest branch and only law-making branch while the Judicial Brand has usurped the power of the Legislative Branch and has become the primary law maker in the country. Consequently, the United States is abandoning the core principle of freedom, rule of law, and adopting the core rule of totalitarianism, arbitrary law.
Our founders warned us that our form of government would cease to exist when any branch of government began to exercise the duties and responsibilities of another. Shame on you SCOTUS minority for assisting in the totalitarian movement. Thank you majority and especially Justice Gorsuch for adhering to your Constitutional duties of adhering to the Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, in your rulings. Perhaps rule of law will be restored.