24 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Supreme Court rules nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions

The continued assault on unions and working class people.

Only good thing that could come of this is the radicalization of unions.  

The last three 5-4 decisions had Kennedy as a swing vote where he sided with the Conservatives.  They:

1) Upheld the Travel Ban (note the absence of religious freedom groups complaining about the Court's decision there);

2) Found that California could not require pro-life health care providers to provide disclosures regarding state resources available (remember that a SCOTUS opinion from the '90s says it is constitutional to require a bunch of disclosures before somebody gets an abortion). 

3) Held that public sector unions cannot require a fee from non-members for the benefit of the union's services in collective bargaining, overturning precedent from a SCOTUS decision in 1977.

In 2018, and again in 2020, remember that the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing to consider Garland for 8 months.  SCOTUS, more than any other part of the federal government, matters.

They stole it and Obama made it way to easy for them to do it. 

 

Also, as far as the Janus ruling goes today, you can bet they go after private sector unions next. 

42 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Supreme Court rules nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions

The continued assault on unions and working class people.

Only good thing that could come of this is the radicalization of unions.  

It's important to recognize that this only impacts public-sector unions, which have been partially to blame for massive unfunded pension liabilities. 

1 minute ago, maggsmaggs said:

It's important to recognize that this only impacts public-sector unions, which have been partially to blame for massive unfunded pension liabilities. 

Yes, working class teachers are definitely to blame for everything.

7 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Yes, working class teachers are definitely to blame for everything.

Notice how I said "partially" and then you extrapolate that to "everything"?  And how you said I am blaming teachers when that never appeared in my post?

But continue your straw-man argument...

Edited June 27, 20187 yr by maggsmaggs

What strawman? 

This supreme court ruling was nothing to do with pensions.

Also, pensions are good. 

11 minutes ago, maggsmaggs said:

It's important to recognize that this only impacts public-sector unions, which have been partially to blame for massive unfunded pension liabilities. 

1) Illinois' pension crisis is not a national pension crisis.  There are a lot of states with generous pensions that are funded.  Using local issues to say that public-sector unions are a bad thing ignores the larger picture.

2) Isn't the larger issue in Illinois that the legislature - on both sides of the aisle - failed to fund pensions for so long that the issue spiraled out of control?

6 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

What strawman? 

This supreme court ruling was nothing to do with pensions.

Also, pensions are good. 

You completely distorted what I said to suggest that I said working-class teachers are to blame for everything.

I know the pension talk always comes up when people start talking about public unions, but this isn't just about a teachers pension in IL. 

This will affect teachers, fireman, police and tons of other public jobs.

4 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

1) Illinois' pension crisis is not a national pension crisis.  There are a lot of states with generous pensions that are funded.  Using local issues to say that public-sector unions are a bad thing ignores the larger picture.

2) Isn't the larger issue in Illinois that the legislature - on both sides of the aisle - failed to fund pensions for so long that the issue spiraled out of control?

(1) Yes, I would agree with you Illinois' pension is representative of elsewhere. That is absolutely true, as Illinois is by most accounts the worst in the country.

(2) This is why I said partially, yes, there were multiple pension holidays under I believe under Governor Edgar that helped push the pensions deeper in the red. And you are also right that my analysis focuses mostly on the local impact (here in Illinois)

But, it is also true that, over the course of Illinois' history, public-sector unions have had a significant persuasion on democratic leaders and allowed overly generous pension benefits to those state workers. Overly generous retirement health-care benefits, cost-of-living adjustments, percent of recent years salary as your pension, etc. The public-sector unions have donated lots of money over the years to democratic leaders to gain their support for these pension benefits.

(BTW, I am a state worker who allegedly will obtain a pension from the State of Illinois). 

41 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

The last three 5-4 decisions had Kennedy as a swing vote where he sided with the Conservatives.  They:

1) Upheld the Travel Ban (note the absence of religious freedom groups complaining about the Court's decision there);

2) Found that California could not require pro-life health care providers to provide disclosures regarding state resources available (remember that a SCOTUS opinion from the '90s says it is constitutional to require a bunch of disclosures before somebody gets an abortion). 

3) Held that public sector unions cannot require a fee from non-members for the benefit of the union's services in collective bargaining, overturning precedent from a SCOTUS decision in 1977.

In 2018, and again in 2020, remember that the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing to consider Garland for 8 months.  SCOTUS, more than any other part of the federal government, matters.

 

41 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

The last three 5-4 decisions had Kennedy as a swing vote where he sided with the Conservatives.  They:

1) Upheld the Travel Ban (note the absence of religious freedom groups complaining about the Court's decision there);

2) Found that California could not require pro-life health care providers to provide disclosures regarding state resources available (remember that a SCOTUS opinion from the '90s says it is constitutional to require a bunch of disclosures before somebody gets an abortion). 

3) Held that public sector unions cannot require a fee from non-members for the benefit of the union's services in collective bargaining, overturning precedent from a SCOTUS decision in 1977.

In 2018, and again in 2020, remember that the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing to consider Garland for 8 months.  SCOTUS, more than any other part of the federal government, matters.

But counting #3 and the fact that they didn't decide the partisan gerrymandering case and the fact that they decided that racial gerrymandering was ok in Texas, they continue to set things up to make sure that even if Democrats get more votes, it's narrow enough that the Republicans will remain in control of everything. 

4 minutes ago, maggsmaggs said:

(1) Yes, I would agree with you Illinois' pension is representative of elsewhere. That is absolutely true, as Illinois is by most accounts the worst in the country.

(2) This is why I said partially, yes, there were multiple pension holidays under I believe under Governor Edgar that helped push the pensions deeper in the red. And you are also right that my analysis focuses mostly on the local impact (here in Illinois)

But, it is also true that, over the course of Illinois' history, public-sector unions have had a significant persuasion on democratic leaders and allowed overly generous pension benefits to those state workers. Overly generous retirement health-care benefits, cost-of-living adjustments, percent of recent years salary as your pension, etc. The public-sector unions have donated lots of money over the years to democratic leaders to gain their support for these pension benefits.

(BTW, I am a state worker who allegedly will obtain a pension from the State of Illinois). 

Just to note, none of the money people pay in their union fees go to political campaigns. 

I seen Trump tweeted out today that they did and that isn't the case.  It will be used in the future to get people to not opt into unions. 

1 minute ago, GoSox05 said:

Just to note, none of the money people pay in their union fees go to political campaigns. 

I seen Trump tweeted out today that they did and that isn't the case.  It will be used in the future to get people to not opt into unions. 

This is definitely correct. No argument there.

Fox News top headline is "JUSTICE DELIVERS - Gorsuch tips scales in union case as Trump agenda triumphs in another landmark case."  http://www.foxnews.com/

Remember all those complaints from Conservative media about activist judges?  

 

1 minute ago, illinilaw08 said:

Fox News top headline is "JUSTICE DELIVERS - Gorsuch tips scales in union case as Trump agenda triumphs in another landmark case."  http://www.foxnews.com/

Remember all those complaints from Conservative media about activist judges?  

 

Well, yes, they were upholding issues that weren't on the conservative agenda. Hence, "activism", because everything that doesn't go their way is somehow inherently bad and wrong.

Kennedy retiring.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-announces-retirement-1530122570

We're two years from a Presidential election, and Donald Trump is already campaigning.  It would be distasteful to appoint a justice under such circumstances.  Let the people decide...

I'm sure spinless, centrist Schumer will bend over backward and be civil throughout this process.  Wouldn't want him to employ any of McConnell's tactics to steal a seat.

5 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Kennedy retiring.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-announces-retirement-1530122570

We're two years from a Presidential election, and Donald Trump is already campaigning.  It would be distasteful to appoint a justice under such circumstances.  Let the people decide...

Good god.  Things are going to be interesting. 

Could see huge hits to gay rights and women's right to choose. 

If only a few more people had voted in certain states Hillary could have potentially picked 2 justices.

Maybe this will make people vote in 2018.

I'm not getting in the Hillary stuff anymore.  People need to get over that.

 

On the other hand people better start getting mad.  Stop letting people tell you that it's wrong to get angry. 

 

 

Edited June 27, 20187 yr by GoSox05

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

Good god.  Things are going to be interesting. 

Could see huge hits to gay rights and women's right to choose. 

I disagree.  I think those issues are pretty settled.  Roe v Wade isn’t Going anywhere, even if there were 9 conservative judges.  I’d bet everything I own on that.  

 

There really aren’t social issues to get mad about or fight for any more.  Gays have all the rights, women are thriving, everyone has the same right no matter who they are.  

I’d look into incarceration of non violent offenders as one of the last things worth protesting or being an activist about.  Just nothing worth being mad about anymore.  Progressive isn’t needed anymore, we made it.  

5 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

I disagree.  I think those issues are pretty settled.  Roe v Wade isn’t Going anywhere, even if there were 9 conservative judges.  I’d bet everything I own on that.  

 

There really aren’t social issues to get mad about or fight for any more.  Gays have all the rights, women are thriving, everyone has the same right no matter who they are.  

I’d look into incarceration of non violent offenders as one of the last things worth protesting or being an activist about.  Just nothing worth being mad about anymore.  Progressive isn’t needed anymore, we made it.  

Ok.

8 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

I disagree.  I think those issues are pretty settled.  Roe v Wade isn’t Going anywhere, even if there were 9 conservative judges.  I’d bet everything I own on that.  

 

There really aren’t social issues to get mad about or fight for any more.  Gays have all the rights, women are thriving, everyone has the same right no matter who they are.  

I’d look into incarceration of non violent offenders as one of the last things worth protesting or being an activist about.  Just nothing worth being mad about anymore.  Progressive isn’t needed anymore, we made it.  

 

I really disagree. I think that there is definitely an attempt to curtail things like abortion, gay rights etc. You live near a pretty liberal city. I agree around Chicago this stuff is pretty settled, but I dont think that is the same everywhere. 

33 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

I disagree.  I think those issues are pretty settled.  Roe v Wade isn’t Going anywhere, even if there were 9 conservative judges.  I’d bet everything I own on that.  

 

There really aren’t social issues to get mad about or fight for any more.  Gays have all the rights, women are thriving, everyone has the same right no matter who they are.  

I’d look into incarceration of non violent offenders as one of the last things worth protesting or being an activist about.  Just nothing worth being mad about anymore.  Progressive isn’t needed anymore, we made it.  

SCOTUS just overturned a 40 year old precedent on public unions... today.  Precedent isn't as sacred as some people would like it to be...

37 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

I disagree.  I think those issues are pretty settled.  Roe v Wade isn’t Going anywhere, even if there were 9 conservative judges.  I’d bet everything I own on that.  

 

There really aren’t social issues to get mad about or fight for any more.  Gays have all the rights, women are thriving, everyone has the same right no matter who they are.  

I’d look into incarceration of non violent offenders as one of the last things worth protesting or being an activist about.  Just nothing worth being mad about anymore.  Progressive isn’t needed anymore, we made it.  

Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I'm uncertain whether they'll be able to bring back the full sodomy laws, they're still on the books in many states just unenforceable due to a 5-4 decision. The religious right will not let Roe v. Wade stand, that has been their singular demand for my entire adult life, and they have the power to do so.