Conservative side of the Supreme Court 5-4 siding *with* unions. Why?

S

speedracer

Banned
Apparently a union contract can waive an individual federally recognized right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04sat3.html?ref=opinion

Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about original intent? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about individual rights? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about judicial activism? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about unions being too strong? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about overturning long established precedent (you know, American tradition)? Deafening silence.

Don't forget to read Clarence Thomas's piece of shit decision. Remember, Federal Arbitration Act > Rights.

And the world keeps turning.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Apparently a union contract can waive an individual federally recognized right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04sat3.html?ref=opinion

Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about original intent? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about individual rights? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about judicial activism? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about unions being too strong? Deafening silence.
Where's the screaming from "conservatives" about overturning long established precedent (you know, American tradition)? Deafening silence.

Don't forget to read Clarence Thomas's piece of shit decision. Remember, Federal Arbitration Act > Rights.

And the world keeps turning.[/quote]

Age discrimination is a very serious issue. For the suckers left out of the baby bonus pool and those who don't have a constitutionally-protected right to "hold their offices during good behavior".

And here I thought Logan's Run was science-fiction.

World does keep spinning for the golden-parachute, bonus baby, and constitutionally-protected govt job guaranteed judiciary set. It's only the suckers who weren't born into wealth and privelege, the people who actually work for a living, that will be affected.

Stay in school kids and work your asses off while you still can, because corporations, unions, and just about any other group that can hire an army of lawyers now have the right to yank the carpet out from under your feet the day that gem turns from green to red.
 
While they cannot file a claim for age discrimination, they can file a claim with the EEOC and the EEOC can bring the charges to court as they are not bound by the contract. At least thats what I just learned in my first week in Employment Law.
 
We were just discussing antidiscrimination laws in my business management class last week, the law talked about in the article being one of them. I can't believe that the supreme court could allow a contract to take precedent over federal law.
 
speedracer, you seem to be suggesting that the conservatives are being hypocritical on this. That wouldn't be surprising, but I'm not sure that's what happened here.
 
[quote name='rickonker']speedracer, you seem to be suggesting that the conservatives are being hypocritical on this. That wouldn't be surprising, but I'm not sure that's what happened here.[/QUOTE]
In a general sense, yea. I mean, the super partisans of the board couldn't care less about this because they're more interested in contract law in Iowa. But really I'm talking about the court itself.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf

How do you see it?
 
[quote name='speedracer']In a general sense, yea. I mean, the super partisans of the board couldn't care less about this because they're more interested in contract law in Iowa. But really I'm talking about the court itself.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf

How do you see it?[/QUOTE]
Well, the "right" in question comes from an act of Congress, not even from the Constitution, right?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Well, the "right" in question comes from an act of Congress, not even from the Constitution, right?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I follow you. I'm tempted to agree, but there's this part of me that wants to get all libertarian and scream natural rights inherent in the Constitution when faced with a statement like that.

I guess it depends on how you view conservatism's take on the Constitution. If you believe the genuine incorruptible-word-of-God is the words on the paper itself (thereby speaking to original intent, "strict constructionism" in the way they mean it) , then perhaps it would be reasonable to interpret this as not violating those beliefs.

Then again, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where this doesn't violate the principles of judicial activism, since they seem to be openly disregarding the intent of the laws in question. Not to mention little quibbles like Roberts saying at his hearing that he doesn't see a reason to overturn precedence (which was about as clear in this case as it gets) without strong evidence to do so. I also can't see a rational person making that claim either.

If we're going to get all "not hypocritical" about their views on this and take them at this super-hyper-way-past-reasonable strict constructionism that would be required to not see this as hypocritical, then as my wife likes to point out, one only need a cursory glance at the Constitution to come to the realization that it is clearly illegal for a woman to be Vice President.

So they're either full of shit or insane. I think Roberts is full of shit, Alito and Scalia are batshit insane, and Thomas is one of the most simple minded justices ever (and that's saying something). All of them fit the profile of being raging hypocrites across the board, but I think they really shine on simple issues like this where they can't hide behind a ton of case law and even a lay person can see that something smells like bullshit.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm not sure I follow you. I'm tempted to agree, but there's this part of me that wants to get all libertarian and scream natural rights inherent in the Constitution when faced with a statement like that.[/quote]

Wait, now I'm not sure I follow you either. What natural right are you talking about?
I guess it depends on how you view conservatism's take on the Constitution. If you believe the genuine incorruptible-word-of-God is the words on the paper itself (thereby speaking to original intent, "strict constructionism" in the way they mean it) , then perhaps it would be reasonable to interpret this as not violating those beliefs.

Then again, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where this doesn't violate the principles of judicial activism, since they seem to be openly disregarding the intent of the laws in question. Not to mention little quibbles like Roberts saying at his hearing that he doesn't see a reason to overturn precedence (which was about as clear in this case as it gets) without strong evidence to do so. I also can't see a rational person making that claim either.

If we're going to get all "not hypocritical" about their views on this and take them at this super-hyper-way-past-reasonable strict constructionism that would be required to not see this as hypocritical, then as my wife likes to point out, one only need a cursory glance at the Constitution to come to the realization that it is clearly illegal for a woman to be Vice President.

So they're either full of shit or insane. I think Roberts is full of shit, Alito and Scalia are batshit insane, and Thomas is one of the most simple minded justices ever (and that's saying something). All of them fit the profile of being raging hypocrites across the board, but I think they really shine on simple issues like this where they can't hide behind a ton of case law and even a lay person can see that something smells like bullshit.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that most conservatives who talk about being strict constructionists are full of shit, because they're happy to violate the Constitution when it suits them.

But when it comes to this, it's hard for me to get worked up about things now either way. Unfortunately, liberty of contract died in the US a long time ago, if it ever really existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top