Tag Archives: SCOTUS

News

Three cheers for the Janus SCOTUS decision and right-to-work laws in 27 states

Leave a comment
Political contributions from unions are overwhelmingly given to Democrats and leftists
Contributions from unions are mostly given to Democrats and leftists

Some people think of unions as a force for good. Perhaps they were in the past, but a little reading of economics shows how they actually produce very bad results for workers. In addition to that, unions are actively trying to influence the outcome of elections in 2020, using the money collected from their members. Fortunately, there have been two great developments recently that limit their power.

Here’s a recent story from Just the News:

Leaders of several public and private sector unions are threatening to organize walkouts this fall for teachers, truck drivers and service workers in an effort to protest police killings.

“The status quo — of police killing Black people, of armed white nationalists killing demonstrators, of millions sick and increasingly desperate — is clearly unjust, and it cannot continue,” said a statement issued over the weekend by various arms of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and National Education Association.

[…]The union leaders also called for defunding police departments and universal health care.

You can see their progressive convictions coming out in how they distribute the money they collect from their members.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Organized labor has given more than $1.3 billion to Democratic Party organizations and liberal nonprofit and activist groups since 2010, while 1 percent went to conservative groups or causes, according to a survey of federal data.

The giving is starkly different from the beliefs of most rank-and-file union members, many of whom lean Republican.

Having said all of that, there were two pieces of good news about labor unions that I think we should celebrate during Labor Day.

First of all, there was a very good decision to allow teachers to opt out of having to pay union dues in all 50 states. Second, a large number of states have enacted right-to-work laws, which allow employees in union-dominated jobs to be able to work without being forced to join a union.

This article explains both:

While every public sector employee across the country now enjoys right to work protections under the First Amendment as a result of the 2018 National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, private sector workers in the 23 states that have yet to pass a right to work law can lose their job for refusing to tender dues or fees to a union.

Right to work protects each worker’s freedom of choice, but the advantages of right to work hardly stop there. Enshrining workplace freedom also brings significant economic benefits to the 27 states that have passed right to work laws.

Between 2009 and 2019, right to work states saw the total number of people employed grow by 16.9%. That’s nearly double the 9.6% gain in non-right to work states, according to an analysis of federal government statistics compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, or NILRR.

The study also found that, after adjusting for the cost of living, the mean after-tax household income in right to work states was about $4,300 higher than for households in forced-unionism states in 2018, the most recent year for which household income data is available.

The connection between right to work laws and better economic performance is not a surprise. Business experts consistently rank the presence of right to work laws as one of the most important factors companies consider when deciding where to expand or relocate their plants and facilities, where they will create new jobs and new opportunities.

Take the manufacturing sector, for example. The NILRR analysis revealed that employment in the manufacturing sector increased by 10% in right to work states from 2009 to 2019, over three times the 2.9% gain forced-unionism states saw over that same period.

Right to work laws clearly make economic sense, but protecting employee freedom has always been their central feature.

I really liked the Janus decision and right-to-work laws, because I don’t think that conservative workers should be forced to join a union in order to earn a living. The unions should not get access to worker money for free – unions should have to earn their worker’s money by providing value. And the worker should decide whether there is value there, or not.

You can see a full breakdown of union contributions by political affiliation for 2019-2020 here at Open Secrets.

News

Both of Trump’s Supreme Court picks declare Louisiana pro-life law Constitutional

Leave a comment
I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I don't approve this decision
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I don’t approve this decision

This post is just a round-up of some interesting points about the disappointing SCOTUS decision from Monday.

Life News reported:

Though pro-lifers mourned another loss at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in the fight to protect unborn babies and mothers, many found hope in the fact that both of President Donald Trump’s nominees rejected the majority opinion.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in June Medical Services v. Russo. The case involved a Louisiana law that requires abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges so that they can treat patients with potentially life-threatening complications.

On Monday, the four liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts decided that the law imposes an “undue burden” on women’s right to abortion. Roberts’ ruling was a huge disappointment for pro-life advocates. Many believed Roberts, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, would at least agree to uphold the modest abortion regulation for the sake of women’s health and safety, but he did not.

But pro-life leaders were happy with how Trump’s two choices ruled in the matter.

“We are pleased that the two Justices appointed by President Trump voted to protect women and to uphold the Louisiana pro-life law,” said James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life.

Gorsuch wrote a strong, critical dissent of the majority opinion, slamming the justices for ignoring “an array of rules” that keep the judiciary branch in check.

The rules make “sure that we are in the business of saying what the law is, not what we wish it to be,” Gorsuch wrote in his dissent. “Today’s decision doesn’t just overlook one of these rules. It overlooks one after another.”

At length, he listed Louisiana’s concerns for women’s health, including dozens of health and safety violations at abortion facilities, botched abortions, and new evidence suggesting abortion facilities may not have reported the rape of a young girl to authorities.

“At least one Louisiana abortion provider’s loss of admitting privileges following a patient’s death alerted the state licensing board to questions about his competence, and ultimately resulted in restrictions on his practice,” he wrote.

Gorsuch said Louisiana lawmakers had good reasons to pass the admitting privileges law. He said they heard testimony from women and emergency room physicians about abortion practitioners’ record of abandoning their patients.

My favorite justice Clarence Thomas added:

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”

“Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” he added, saying that the high court has “neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional.”

Thomas’ dissent makes it clear that the abortion activists who brought the lawsuit didn’t even have standing to bring it, since petitioners who file lawsuits are supposed to bring such suits on their own behalf concerning their own abrogated rights or grievances, not on behalf of others.

Thomas made that problem clear: “As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.”

Both of Obama’s picks (Kagan and Sotomayor) voted in favor of the abortion clinics, saying that states cannot legislate common sense safety rules for abortion providers.

And here was Trump’s reaction, reported by Life News:

On behalf of President Donald Trump, the White House issued a statement slamming the ruling and saying it “devalued the lives of unborn children.”

“In an unfortunate ruling today, the Supreme Court devalued both the health of mothers and the lives of unborn children by gutting Louisiana’s policy that required all abortion procedures be performed by individuals with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,” the White House said. “States have legitimate interests in regulating any medical procedure—including abortions—to protect patient safety. Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected Justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of State governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations.”

The two oldest judges on the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) are almost certain to be replaced in the next federal election. It will be interesting to see what pro-lifers do in order to get Trump re-elected. So far, his picks have been solid on the abortion issue. But not everyone who claims to be pro-life is practical about getting pro-life outcomes. A lot of pro-lifers are cynical and conspiracy-minded, so that they find ways to think themselves righteous without getting involved and being effective.

Make sure you have a plan to replace Bader-Ginsburg and Breyer by getting Trump re-elected in November 2020.

News

Moderate senator Lindsey Graham rips Democrats for unfair treatment of Kavanaugh

5 Comments
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

Democrats have accused Kavanaugh of drugging and raping women, participating in gang rapes and operating a gang-rape ring (when he was a high school student). I tweeted a lot about the hearing on Thursday, but the comments of Lindsey Graham, a moderate centrist Republican, was the best response to the Democrat’s charges against Kavanaugh.

First, here is a good sample of how the Democrats questioned Kavanaugh during the hearing, to evaluate his suitability for the Supreme Court of the United States of America: (5 minutes)

Kavanaugh threw up too much, farted too much, etc. when he was 16 years old.

Senator Lindsey Graham also questioned Kavanaugh: (5 minutes)

He’s so angry that his thoughts are all jumbled up. But you can get the basic idea of what he’s saying.

Real Clear Politics had the transcript, here’s some of it:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me.

[…]This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy.

[…]Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.

That you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford. none. She’s as much of a victim as you are.

God, I hate to say it because these [Democrats] have been my friends, but… [t]his is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook. You have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation. You’re supposed to be Bill Cosby when you’re a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden you got over it. It’s been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don’t stop.

[…]To my Republican colleagues: If you vote no, you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.

I listened to reactions from people like Dana Loesch, Buck Sexton and Matt Walsh to Lindsey Graham on their podcasts, and they were as shocked as  I was. This is the guy who, throughout his career, bent over backwards to cut compromise deals with Democrats in the Senate. He’s been  centrist moderate as a Republican senator. I have nothing good to say about him. I supported his last primary challenger, and was disappointed when Graham won the primary.

So I really have no idea what is going on here – this is the last thing I would have expected from Graham. But it does tell you something about how unfair the Kavanaugh hearings were.

Here is Senator Graham sounding less angry, and more coherent, talking to the news media – the same news media that fawned over his RINO actions for so many years: (5 minutes)

PJ Media summarized the video above:

“I feel ambushed,” Graham told reporters at the conclusion of the hearing this afternoon.

“When it comes to where it happened,” Graham said, “I still don’t know. I don’t know when it happened. She says she’s 100% certain it did happen. I bet you Judge Kavanaugh will say I’m 100% sure I didn’t do it.”

He said the people named by Ford as corroborating witnesses “don’t know what Ms. Ford’s talking about.” In addition, “She can’t tell how she got home and how she got there and that’s the facts I’m left with. A nice lady who has come forward it to tell a hard story that’s uncorroborated.”

“And this is enough, ” he said. “God help anybody else who gets nominated,” Graham continued. “Based on what I heard today, you could not get a search warrant or an arrest warrant because you don’t know the location, you don’t know the time, you don’t have any corroboration.”

Graham said all he heard today was a bunch of speeches from politicians who have politicized the confirmation process..

The South Carolina senator, who has a background as a prosecutor and a judge, said, “I didn’t find her allegations to be corroborated against Mr. Kavanaugh. I don’t doubt something happened to her… but she can’t tell me the house, the city, the month of the year.”

“When you have a emotional accusation and an emotional denial,” he explained, “you use the rule of law, the presumption of innocence attaches to the person accused. You have to give them… time and location. You ask is there anybody to verify this, and when you give hames all of them goes the other way.”

Asked about whether Graham thought there should be a full investigation, the visibly angry Graham said, “If you really believe we needed an investigation for this, why didn’t you tell us in August? The FBI is going to tell us what? What house are they going to go to? What city are they going to go to? Who are they going to talk to because they can’t tell us the month, barely the year.”

“This is all delay” on the part of Democrats, he told reporters. “I’m not going to reward people for playing a political game.” He said Ford “is just as much a victim as, I think, Brett Kavanaugh. Somebody betrayed her trust. And we know who she gave the letter to and the people that betrayed her trust, they owe her an apology.”

There were not enough specific details in Ford’s testimony to warrant a search warrant, an arrest warrant, or any further investigation. In any case, the Democrats had the allegations in July, but they didn’t ask for an investigation then, because they wanted to drag out the confirmation process past the mid-terms.

The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh is scheduled for Friday morning, a full Senate procedural vote on Saturday, and the full Senate confirmation vote on Tuesday. Already, Bob Corker, who was on the fence about Kavanaugh has tweeted that he will support Kavanaugh. A tweet from a reporter from The Atlantic suggests that Democrat Joe Manchin will do the same. A tweet from a Washington Post reporter Friday morning says Jeff Flake will vote for Kavanaugh. We’re still waiting to hear from center-left Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, as well as red-state Democrats Joe Donelly and Heidi Heitkamp.

More Lindsey Graham on video here. (8 minutes)