Comments on: Breaking News: Supreme Court Strikes Down Union Fees

By: volunteerstate

volunteerstate — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:35:53 +0000

I am not so sure this will be “minor” to the unions and their Democrat funding. Each member must affirmatively agree to the increase. That is a substantial hurdle compared to the previous situation.

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:38:27 +0000

They settled the case hoping for mootness, but nothing would have prevented them from doing it again in the future if the Supreme Court did not step in. That is why California has a ballot initiative. I believe its called the Paycheck Fairness initiative. If voters approve it, it would simply codify this ruling. More importantly, this stops this practice nationwide.

By: expanding_man

expanding_man — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:07:06 +0000

As far as Supreme Court decisions go, this one is pretty minor in importance. The unions will just the way they do their annual notices to make them more general/inclusive.

By: APA Guy

APA Guy — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:30:52 +0000

Quick…someone get them a hanky…their leftist appointments aren’t marching in lockstep with their pro-union agenda.

I know I am probably in the minority here, but I think the health care law will be struck down 6-3 or 7-2 in the end. I heard serious objections from a couple of the more liberal justices regarding the mandate…and since the mandate being struck down nullifies much of the rest of it, I think the decision may be stronger rebuke than the 5-4 many expect.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:51:22 +0000

SEIU is still defending the action, and there’s nothing to stop them from resuming the action as soon as the court rules, so they decided it was not moot.

By: clawga

clawga — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:35:00 +0000

Was this considered moot because the SEIU paid the back dues and therefore admitted fault (culpability?)

If SCOTUS allowed mootness and did not rule on this case, would that mean unions could try this same ploy again because it was not explicitly forbidden to do so or was there another strategy?

I enjoy your diary btw nice to see an easy to read interpretation of “lawyerspeak”

By: davenj1

davenj1 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:39:34 +0000

First, sorry for typos and bad grammar. I was typing fast as decision was coming in. Second, the decision is more like 6-3. Sotomayor had certain objections to the breadth of the majority opinion, but she agreed with the judgment.