Connect with us

Politics

SCOTUS set to strike down forced union dues for non-union member public employees

Published

on

The Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments Feb. 26 in the Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 case, when plaintiffs will demand relief from forced union dues for government employees, who are not members of a union.

“Teachers, librarians, firefighters and other public sector workers should have the right to decide for themselves whether to join a union and pay dues,” said Trey Kovacs, a labor policy expert at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“In the Janus case, the Supreme Court should protect public employees’ right to free speech and strike down laws that force workers to fund political activities and candidates they disagree with,” he said.

Trending: Bezos-Linked Thinktank Official Calls for Michael Anton’s Execution for Exposing Anti-Trump Color Revolution

The plaintiff in the case is Mark Janus, an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, who was stunned to learn that he was required to pay dues to a union he did not join.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“I’ve negotiated my own salary and benefits at plenty of jobs before I started working for the state,” he said.

Janus said he figured he was not the only one in the same situation.

“I just look at it as an average guy standing up for his own rights of free speech,” he said.

Although, he is becoming the center of the legal world’s attention, Janus said he did not deserve special attention, even though his case could save millions of government employees millions of dollars. “I don’t look at it like I’m anybody special or anybody extraordinary.”

What makes the case so significant is that it challenges the high court’s 1977 D. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision.

Jacob Huebert, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, said, “We are pleased the Supreme Court has agreed to take up this case and revisit a 40-year-old precedent that has allowed governments to violate the First Amendment rights of millions of workers.”

The Abood decision affirmed the authority of government force its employees to pay dues to unions they did not belong to.

Huebert said because of Abood public sectors workers need relief.

“Right now, public sector employees in Illinois and many other states aren’t given a choice: They’re automatically forced to give their money to a union. Janus v. AFSCME presents an opportunity to restore fairness and First Amendment rights to millions of American workers by giving them the right to choose whether to support a union with their money,” he said.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix said, “With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Janus case, we are now one step closer to freeing over five million public sector teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other employees from the injustice of being forced to subsidize a union as a condition of working for their own government.”

Watch this video about Mark Janus:

 

 

Politics

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies

Her decision should raise some eyebrows.

Published

on

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as the choice of Conservative Twitter to be the successor on the Supreme Court to replace deceased former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday after many bouts of cancer.

However, Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.

Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.

“At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to [Pritzker’s executive order] based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty,” the majority opinion read in the case.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

It continued: “[W]hile in the face of a pandemic the Governor of Illinois was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities, see Elim, nothing in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment barred him from doing so. As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”

While Barrett rolls over to the far left and allows Democrats to rip up the Constitution, other judges are actually living up to their oath, such as the Trump-appointed District Judge in Pennsylvania, William S. Stickman.

In his ruling, Stickman refused to hide behind precedent to allow the constitution to be destroyed by Democrats. He effectively deep-sixed Pennsylvania’s lockdown and obliterated the abominable Jacobson decision.

He wrote: “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

“The Court shares the concerns expressed by Justice Alito… and believes that an extraordinarily deferential standard based on Jacobson is not appropriate,” Stickman added.

Patriotic attorney Robert Barnes has levied additional criticism against Barrett for her unwillingness to stand up to Democrat overreach.

“For example, Barrett, I would oppose her nomination personally. So I would do whatever I can to see her nomination fail. I have no interest in seeing someone like that on the bench,” Barnes explained during an interview on the Viva Frei YouTube channel.

“She comes from the old money corporate South, a world I’m familiar with and the kind of people I’d never want to see in positions of power… That’s the world she comes from. Her dad was a big Shell oil corporate lawyer,” he continued.

Barnes explained how Barrett’s history working as a Clerk for deceased former Justice Antonin Scalia is giving the false impression that she shares his staunch originalist beliefs when that is not in fact the case. He explained that her rise is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose record of extreme cowardice on the bench has harmed the nation immeasurably.

“This is how Justice Roberts got on the bench. You do two things if you’re on the Republican side of the aisle: You let people know that you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned even if you don’t believe that… And you play the corporate side of the equation,” he said.

“But most importantly, you get that Justice and his extended intellectual heavyweights to lobby for you to be appointed to the judicial bench down the road… That’s why people are pushing Barrett,” Barnes added.

Barnes highlighted some of Barrett’s worst decisions in a blistering Twitter thread.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending