U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: SCOTUS ruling on Janus is about to change the American political landscape [involuntary union dues]
Source:
HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06 ... -american-political-landscape/
Published: Jun 27, 2018
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2018-06-27 11:45:13 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 5456
Comments: 44
Justice Alito wrote the decision and it followed along with the expectations of those who watched the case play out before the court. Also as expected, this was a 5-4 decision, split along partisan lines. At the heart of Janus was the question of whether or not unions can forcibly extract dues from workers’ paychecks without the worker proactively volunteering to contribute. In parallel to that, the court had to determine whether or not those extracted fees, being put toward lobbying efforts, constituted involuntary political speech on the part of the worker. The ruling answers both questions definitively. You can read the full decision here but I’ve extracted a couple of the key points from the syllabus. First is the issue of whether the previous ruling in Abood (which went in the unions’ favor) erred in allowing the forcible extraction of dues. Alito leaves no room for doubt. The second question was the one about subsidizing the speech of others when it runs contrary to your personal beliefs. Again, Alito is definitive. A union official, Paul Shearon, the IFPTE Secretary-Treasurer, put out an immediate statement saying that this was based on, “a bogus free speech argument.” He went on to say that the justices voting in the majority “are little better than political hacks.” That was followed up by a threat to take it to the streets. This is going to send shockwaves through not just the unions, but the Democratic Party at large. The amount of money that the unions flush into Democratic coffers every year is likely more than most of you imagine. This was a point being driven home in advance of the decision by Hugh Hewitt this morning. He was reminding everyone precisely what this decision was going to mean to the unions if it went against them. — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) June 27, 2018 — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) June 27, 2018 Liberals have been bracing for this result for a while now. Back in February, the WaPo seemed to see the writing on the wall here and tried suggesting a “compromise” where the unions could collect a smaller amount of money for a more “focused purpose.” This is a silly suggestion, of course, since money is fungible. Even if the collected dues are narrowly applied to a different purpose, that simply frees up funds to be moved over to political activism. (Which is the majority of the business the unions engage in to begin with.) Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed. (Of course, it’s primarily just a fiscal crisis for the unions.) How serious that crisis becomes won’t be known for some time. But the important point is that a new precedent has been set and workers are still free to join unions or make voluntary, proactive payments to them if they feel it’s a worthy cause. But the unions will no longer be able to reach into their pockets without permission. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. E.g., West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633. That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers. In the short run, the Janus decision may hurt some unions financially, but in the long run it will serve to make unions and their members more militant and force a stronger culture of internal organizing. The recent statewide teacher strikes demonstrate that when public sector workers face limitations on their bargaining rights they take their case to the streets. Now 3 hours. Very few political reporters seem to understand the stakes here but it is hundreds of millions of dollars of coerced contributions to Democrats and initiatives that dries up instantly if Janus prevails. https://t.co/IigA0isQC3 How important is the Janus v AFSMCE decision today? Take a look at this chart: https://t.co/oh35fCuRbS Most of that money for Democrats and liberal causes dries up, overnight, if Janus prevails.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
More like a 'fecal' crisis in their pants!
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
We've seen this happen at the state level already in states like Wisconsin. I have to agree: the union officials probably crapped a brick over this ruling. I wonder how many reserve funds they still have on-hand to support Dem candidates in the 2018 midterms. By the end of summer, the big unions like NEA could see 25%-40% of their coerced duespaying members fleeing with more eying the door. Even losing 15%-20% of their duespaying members would be a major disaster for the unions. The 2011 collective bargaining reforms championed by Gov. Scott Walker finally gave Wisconsin public employees – including teachers – the freedom to choose whether or not they wanted to join the union and pay dues. Based on the data, thousands of teachers made the decision that the union’s services were not worthy of the costly monthly dues. Prior to the passage of Act 10, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) had approximately 100,000 members. This news of the dramatic drop in membership was first reported by the Wisconsin State Journal in February, but was brought to light again on Monday by public education blogger Mike Antonucci – whose work has been featured multiple times by major news outlets – along with some staggering figures for the National Education Association (NEA). According to Antonucci, director of the website eiaonline.com, the “downward spiral” led WEAC to cut its dues by $60 to $218. On the national level, the NEA has also seen a drop in membership. From 2009 to 2014, according to Antonucci, the NEA lost more than 310,000 members – a drop of nearly 11 percent. Wisconsin led the way with the largest five-year drop of nearly 53.1 percent. It isn’t just individual members that are leaving their unions, though. The MacIver Institute reported in December that an increasing number of teachers’ unions were being decertified by their members all together. Under Walker’s reforms, public unions must hold annual recertification elections to ensure they still have the support of their members. More than 100 public school unions in Wisconsin have voted to decertify in the past two years. While Act 10 continues to save taxpayers money everyday – a total that has eclipsed $3 billion – it also has grants thousands of public employees workplace freedom. According to the data, it looks like teachers and other public school employees are actively taking advantage of that freedom.
This is a great ruling for free speech and for workers. IF unions represented workers' interests, it would be a terrible decision. Truth is, unions are fundraising vehicles of the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party militantly leaves the Border open, which isn't good for any dues-paying worker in America. So, since the unions do not, in fact, represent the American workers, cutting their taproot of funding is simply removing a Democrat Tax on American laborers. Good decision.
You know that Alito must have relished writing this, probably more than any other opinion he's written. Interesting to see the Court is still hellbent on their ruling from Citizens United when they first affirmed "money=speech". So this decision is consistent with those principles. If speech is money and money is speech, then compelling "speech" via union dees has to violate a person's personal integrity and does him financial harm in the process. No matter what, Gorsuch is better than Merrick Garland would have been on any case we've seen or can imagine.
Great news! Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed. (Of course, it’s primarily just a fiscal crisis for the unions.) Exactly. But as is their wont, Democrat-Communist "predictions" are just thinly veiled mob-action threats, anarchy, and targeting Constitutionalists, capitalists, and American nationalists. How serious that crisis becomes won’t be known for some time. I believe the "crisis" will manifest itself in the usual "Resistance"/SEIU manner of threats, extortion, blackmail, assaults, and...murder. All justified and encouraged by the usual suspects -- Leftist MSM, TV Puppets, and organized Social/Communitah Media.
Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1466. Argued February 26, 2018—Decided June 27, 2018 Illinois law permits public employees to unionize. If a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit vote to be represented by a union, that union is designated as the exclusive representative of all the employees, even those who do not join. Only the union may engage in collective bargaining; individual employees may not be represented by another agent or negotiate directly with their employer. Non-members are required to pay what is generally called an "agency fee," i.e., a percentage of the full union dues. Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, 235-236, this fee may cover union expenditures attributable to those activities "germane" to the union's collective-bargaining activities (chargeable expenditures), but may not cover the union's political and ideological projects (nonchargeable expenditures). The union sets the agency fee annually and then sends non-members a notice explaining the basis for the fee and the breakdown of expenditures. Here it was 78.06% of full union dues. Petitioner Mark Janus is a state employee whose unit is represented by a public-sector union (Union), one of the respondents. He refused to join the Union because he opposes many of its positions, including those taken in collective bargaining. Illinois' Governor, similarly opposed to many of these positions, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the state law authorizing agency fees. The state attorney general, another respondent, intervened to defend the law, while Janus moved to intervene on the Governor's side. The District Court dismissed the Governor's challenge for lack of standing, but it simultaneously allowed Janus to file his own complaint challenging the constitutionality of agency fees. The District Court - - - - - - - - - - 2 granted respondents' motion to dismiss on the ground that the claim was foreclosed by Abood. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Held: 1. The District Court had jurisdiction over petitioner's suit. Petitioner was undisputedly injured in fact by Illinois' agency-fee scheme and his injuries can be redressed by a favorable court decision. For jurisdictional purposes, the court permissibly treated his amended complaint in intervention as the operative complaint in a new lawsuit. United States ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. McCord, 233 U. S. 157, distinguished. Pp. 6-7. 2. The State's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Pp. 7-47. (a) Abood's holding is inconsistent with standard First Amendment principles. Pp. 7-18. (1) Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. E.g. , West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633. That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers. E.g. , Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 309. In Knox and Harris v. Quinn, 573 U. S._, the Court applied an "exacting" scrutiny standard in judging the constitutionality of agency fees rather than the more traditional strict scrutiny. Even under the more permissive standard, Illinois' scheme cannot survive. Pp. 7-11. (2) Neither of Abood's two justifications for agency fees passes muster under this standard. First, agency fees cannot be upheld on the ground that they promote an interest in "labor peace." The Abood Court's fears of conflict and disruption if employees were represented by more than one union have proved to be unfounded: Exclusive representation of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are not inextricably linked. To the contrary, in the Federal Government and the 28 States with laws prohibiting agency fees, millions of public employees are represented by unions that effectively serve as the exclusive representatives of all the employees. Whatever may have been the case 41 years ago when Abood was decided, it is thus now undeniable that "labor peace" can readily be achieved through less restrictive means than the assessment of agency fees. Second, avoiding "the risk of 'free riders,'" Abood, supra, at 224, is not a compelling state interest. Free-rider "arguments . . . are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections," Knox, supra, at 311, and the statutory requirement that unions represent members and nonmembers alike does not justify different treatment. As is evident in non-agency-fee jurisdictions, unions are quite willing - - - - - - - - - - 3 to represent nonmembers in the absence of agency fees. And their duty of fair representation is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to be the exclusive representative. In any event, States can avoid free riders through less restrictive means than the imposition of agency fees. Pp. 11-18. (b) Respondents' alternative justifications for Abood are similarly unavailing. Pp. 18-26. (1) The Union claims that Abood is supported by the First Amendment's original meaning. But neither founding-era evidence nor dictum in Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 143, supports the view that the First Amendment was originally understood to allow States to force public employees to subsidize a private third party. If anything, the opposite is true. Pp. 18-22. (2) Nor does Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, provide a basis for Abood. Abood was not based on Pickering, and for good reasons. First, Pickering's framework was developed for use in cases involving "one employee's speech and its impact on that employee's public responsibilities," United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454, 467, while Abood and other agency-fee cases involve a blanket requirement that all employees subsidize private speech with which they may not agree. Second, Pickering's framework was designed to determine whether a public employee's speech interferes with the effective operation of a government office, not what happens when the government compels speech or speech subsidies in support of third parties. Third, the categorization schemes of Pickering and Abood do not line up. For example, under Abood, nonmembers cannot be charged for speech that concerns political or ideological issues; but under Pickering, an employee's free speech interests on such issues could be overcome if outweighed by the employer's interests. Pp. 22-26. (c) Even under some form of Pickering, Illinois' agency-fee arrangement would not survive. Pp. 26-33. (1) Respondents compare union speech in collective bargaining and grievance proceedings to speech "pursuant to [an employee's] official duties," Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410, 421, which the State may require of its employees. But in those situations, the employee's words are really the words of the employer, whereas here the union is speaking on behalf of the employees. Garcetti therefore does not apply. Pp. 26-27. (2) Nor does the union speech at issue cover only matters of private concern, which the State may also generally regulate under Pickering. To the contrary, union speech covers critically important and public matters such as the State's budget crisis, taxes, and collective bargaining issues related to education, child welfare, healthcare, and - - - - - - - - - - 4 minority rights. Pp. 27-31. (3) The government's proffered interests must therefore justify the heavy burden of agency fees on nonmembers' First Amendment interests. They do not. The state interests asserted in Abood— promoting "labor peace" and avoiding free riders—clearly do not, as explained earlier. And the new interests asserted in Harris and here—bargaining with an adequately funded agent and improving the efficiency of the work force—do not suffice either. Experience shows that unions can be effective even without agency fees. Pp. 3133. (d) Stare decisis does not require retention of Abood. An analysis of several important factors that should be taken into account in deciding whether to overrule a past decision supports this conclusion. Pp. 33-47. (1) Abood was poorly reasoned, and those arguing for retaining it have recast its reasoning, which further undermines its stare decisis effect, e.g., Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 363. Abood relied on Railway Employes v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, and Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, both of which involved private-sector collective-bargaining agreements where the government merely authorized agency fees. Abood did not appreciate the very different First Amendment question that arises when a State requires its employees to pay agency fees. Abood also judged the constitutionality of public-sector agency fees using Hanson's deferential standard, which is inappropriate in deciding free speech issues. Nor did Abood take into account the difference between the effects of agency fees in public- and private-sector collective bargaining, anticipate administrative problems with classifying union expenses as chargeable or nonchargeable, foresee practical problems faced by nonmembers wishing to challenge those decisions, or understand the inherently political nature of public-sector bargaining. Pp. 35-38. (2) Abood's lack of workability also weighs against it. Its line between chargeable and nonchargeable expenditures has proved to be impossible to draw with precision, as even respondents recognize. See, e.g., Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 519. What is more, a nonmember objecting to union chargeability determinations will have much trouble determining the accuracy of the union's reported expenditures, which are often expressed in extremely broad and vague terms. Pp. 38-41. (3) Developments since Abood, both factual and legal, have "eroded" the decision's "underpinnings" and left it an outlier among the Court's First Amendment cases. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 521. Abood relied on an assumption that "the principle of exclusive representation in the public sector is dependent on a union or - - - - - - - - - - 5 agency shop," Harris, 573 U. S., at — , but experience has shown otherwise. It was also decided when public-sector unionism was a relatively new phenomenon. Today, however, public-sector union membership has surpassed that in the private sector, and that ascendency corresponds with a parallel increase in public spending. Abood is also an anomaly in the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, where exacting scrutiny, if not a more demanding standard, generally applies. Overruling Abood will also end the oddity of allowing public employers to compel union support (which is not supported by any tradition) but not to compel party support (which is supported by tradition), see, e.g., Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347. Pp. 42-44. (4) Reliance on Abood does not carry decisive weight. The uncertain status of Abood, known to unions for years; the lack of clarity it provides; the short-term nature of collective-bargaining agreements; and the ability of unions to protect themselves if an agency-fee provision was crucial to its bargain undermine the force of reliance. Pp. 44-47. 3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. Pp. 48-49. 851 F. 3d 746, reversed and remanded. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and, GORSUCH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. - - - - - - - - - - 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 16-1466 MARK JANUS, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT [June 27, 2018] JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. [...]
I don't recall Alito getting to write any other major cases like this. Perhaps he has and I just didn't notice. It's a very major ruling that affects decades of labor law. I think this is the major decision of the current SCOTUS session. The only thing that would be bigger would be Kennedy retiring sometime this week.
The Godfather was tweeting again. He's happy today. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018
HEH... True. It's almost as though Trump...is one of us :-) But let's face it -- 0bama started this "nanny-nanny-boo-hoo" war of tweaking the other side. Yes, 0bama obviously did it, only in his own smug, smarmy, smirking "FU YOU, CONSERVATIVES!" way. And who can forget his arrogant "mic-drop" on a talk show as he tried to punk Trump, "At least I'm President -- something you'll never be".? When Trump engages in HIS one-upsmanship against what is a massive army of Leftists, its as a frontal assault. He really weaponizes Twitter like a nuke. Hard not to appreciate the Schadenfreude Factor as smashes the Left (and 0bama indirectly) in its maw. They aren't used to losing at all or getting pwned. Hence the tantrums.
Wow. A 41 year old decision to support coercive union thugs was overturned? This is...YUGE.
Not to hijack my own SCOTUS thread but Biden was just bitching about Trump in WaPo: One European diplomat told me that in a private White House meeting in March, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven explained to Trump that Sweden, although not a member of NATO, partners with the alliance on a case-by-case basis. Trump responded that the United States should consider that approach. A senior administration official told me Trump was joking. At the failed Group of Seven summit in Quebec this month, according to the Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer, Trump disrespected Merkel to her face, throwing two Starburst candies on a desk and saying, “Here, Angela, don’t say I never gave you anything.” Donald Corleone: "...don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever."
http://neatoday.org/2018/06/27/supreme-court-janus-decision/ Supreme Court Ruling in ‘Janus’ Deals Blow to Working Families By John Rosales The collective voice of American workers was undermined today by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of County, State Municipal Employees. In a 5-to-4 decision, which casts aside decades of precedents and laws, the court has eliminated a public-sector union’s ability to collect “fair share” or “agency” fees from workers who choose not to join as union members but are still protected by union agreements. The ruling undermines the ability of educators to come together and bargain collectively on behalf of students. “A strong union and collective bargaining agreements are what help to ensure students receive the tools and resources they need to succeed in school and in life,” says NEA President Lily Eskelsen García. “We’ve seen it in the resources available to our students, and we have felt it in our paychecks.” [...] I was wondering what had ensured that millenial snowflakes received the tools and resources to succeed in school and in life. I thought they succeeded in school because of "No child left behind." They couldn't flunk and they couldn't get set back. They "succeeded" whether they learned anything or not, because it was their self-esteem that really counted. Life seems more problematic because a boss does not care so much about their self-esteem and will give them a pink slip. What they really needed was a stronger teachers' union and teachers with a stronger collective bargaining agreement, and forcing non-members to pay up. /sarc
Yeah, I saw Fauxcahontas wailing about it with 4 big union leaders. Obviously, this was prepared in advance. So there was a leak about the outcome of the case by the two Harvard lesbos or by Ruth Baader-Meinhoff to Lizzie Warren.
El Donaldo was really on a roll today. See, that no-goodnik should have been nicer and more respectful to his
If those corrupt greedy thugs did, it was months ago. It was pretty apparent at the oral arguments which way it would go and that it would likely be 5-4. Even Kennedy tore the union thugs apart as I recall.
I really like the way that President Trump kicks his newly-defeated opponents right in the head.
He loves that stuff. He had several good Tweet zingers today, a sure sign that he's happy.
Trump has been great at these rallies he has been doing. At Fargo, ND he said, "One of my biggest critics, a slovenly man named Joe Crowley, got his ass kicked by a young woman who had a lot of energy." Imagine the Democrats trying to do a rally like Trump does. Who would be their headliner? Nancy Pelosi? Maxine Waters? Chuck Schumer? Adam Schiff? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Hillary Clinton? Tim Kaine? Who have they got?
Bloomberg has been threatening to run as a Dem in 2020. They've been floating Avenatti as a possible Trump challenger. He throws a lot of mud and is positioning himself to make a bigger name politically. The Dems kinda need someone who has been a TV celeb the way Trump has. Or Reagan. If the voters first get to know and accept a minor TV or movie star like Trump or Reagan, it does make it easier for them to break through. So maybe someone from Hollyweird, someone who is combative but is considered sharp, someone who is bold, etc. I can't imagine who that would be. Clooney, Affleck and that bunch aren't smart enough and sound like idiots unless they have pre-written scripts. Biden remains the most popular Dem pol for 2020. I don't see him beating Trump. It was a great line. LOL
Some Alito opinions. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 2010. Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applied to the states. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 2014. Corporations with religious objections can be exempt from a federal law requiring employers to include free coverage of contraceptives in health insurance policies. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_Rubber_Co. This was a case of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation, explaining the meaning of a law, not its constitutionality. The plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, characterized her situation as one where "disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period." In rejecting Ledbetter's appeal, the Supreme Court said that "she could have, and should have, sued" when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period. The Court did leave open the possibility that a plaintiff could sue beyond the 180-day period if she did not, and could not, have discovered the discrimination earlier. The effect of the Court's holding was reversed by the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009.
I think Janus is Alito's biggest case, given your list of his others.
Just remember, he was replaced by a Socialist Sanders loving diaperhead bimbo... who wants to be treated like a dude but will go crazy if you punch her like a dude. I seriously doubt it was because of Crowley’s hate for Trump...this sand potato hates trump even more.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yah, Trump was just trolling them with that crack. He probably laughed about it with Roger Stone. Trump knows they think he's an idiot. So he's yucking it up on Twitter, inviting them to underestimate him.
That District has a poverty rate of almost 20% so I can see why she won, by promising more freebies.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
For all the brouhaha about this district, it was still mostly a white Irish working class neighborhood 20 years ago. And Crowley was an Irish Dem pol, a natural fit. Now the district is a majority Hispanic district. It may be as simple as an energetic Hispanic woman managed to Hispander her way to a primary win in a majority-Hispanic district, which amounts to winning the seat in the fall election. This result cannot be too comforting to all the old white Dems in Congress, especially in the Senate. The BernieComs have shook them up a bit.
Si, se puede. The blacks were put onto the Democratic plantation, but the Hispanics are going to take it over. And that will make for a very different party than a white liberal party with minority black cheerleading.
I saw a prominent Congressional Black Caucus member, talking about how the end result of all these racially-adjusted districts that gave rise to so many black congressmen has had the effect of making the Dem party represented almost exclusively by blacks with very few remaining white Dems, especially white male Dems. He made it sound kinda like a KKK plot or something. I thought he was pretty astute, can't recall who it was or I'd post his video. He could see what the racially-motivated districting has done to the Dem party strategically. Like it was all so shocking for him to discover he was living on a plantation after all.
The black-white thing in America is slowly decaying away, not because of resolution, but because of the pill, Roe, the open Border, and Latin fecundity. A Latin-dominated Democrat Party will sound a lot more like me than the current self- sterilizing black-white plantation. The blacks could be dominated because they were always an internal minority needing allies, without an ancient and enduring world view. But the Hispanics cannot be dominated by whites or blacks, and they have a distinctively Catholic social character. The least pro-choice major ethnic group in America is Latinos. With a Hispanic-dominated Democrat party you could very well see the sort of political grand compromise I would like to see. In any case, it's inevitable, so we really will see in time. What isn't going to happen is the simple assimilation of Hispanics into America, with them adopting white culture wholecloth. They have a different outlook on family, on reproduction, on sexual morality, and that will express itself politically. They won't turn into liberal whites.
I don't believe that's true now, even if it once was. Latin America has gone ex-Catholic, much as Europe has. You're living in the past, dude.
You're living in the past, dude. You don't believe it, but I'm looking at the poll numbers. Latinos are hardly a monolithic bloc, but they are 10 points more pro-life than the white population. Latin America is entirely composed of democracies, with one exception), and they all (except for the one exception) have much more restrictive abortion laws than here. No, Hispanics are not 1950s Catholics. But then, in the 1950s they weren't 1950s American-style Catholics either. But no, the Latinos do not simply turn into whites in America. Nor do they turn into Blacks. They have their own identifiable set of socio-political values - and those values skew a lot more along the lines that I speak of all of time - which is unsurprising.
To put it more clearly, ex-Catholic culture does not look the same as ex- Protestant culture. Ex-Catholic is usually not really ex-Catholic, it is nominal Catholic. Catholics usually do not break the formal allegiance. They don't go to Church, but they still believe in God, vaguely, but in ways that look Catholic. And they value the concept of family even in the breach.
Yes, they do. I'm not sure why you are in denial. That is the essence of the melting pot: eventually, everyone is white in America. Italians and Greeks are white. So are Jews. These were not considered "white" even twenty years ago. Even if they are some darker flavor of "white" and avoid sun exposure to "pass".
Because Latinos themselves, if white, do not consider themselves white. They speak of "white people" and they're not referring to themselves. They consider themselves to be a separate race, and they look down somewhat on the whites and don't want to fully assimilate with them.
To get more specific, the Latinos are to white Americans what Latin Europeans are to Germanics. Latin Europeans consider themselves to be morally superior and more cultured than Germanics. They acknowledge that the Nords work hard and are good with money, but think of them has having dull, grey, overworked lives and various psychological dysfunctions. Latins consider themselves to be nicer people than Germanics. The same is true between Anglos and Hispanics in America. It is the difference between the English and Spanish Empires of old. Their views of each other were as hostile as Democrats and Republicans, and like Democrats and Republcans, each really believed (and believes) themselves to really, truly be the good guys. Hispanics think they're the good guys. Anglos think they are. I am of both cultures - Latin (not Latino) - and I walk the wire between them. But in the end I would much rather live in Paris, or Rome, or Barcelona, or Lisbon, than London or Frankfurt or Berlin. Latin culture is better than Germanic culture. Latin food is better. Latin music is better. Latin life is better. "Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there's laughter there and good red wine, or I have always found it so. Benedicamos Domino!" Also, the sexual culture of the Latin world - the whole mindset - is FAR superior to that of the twisted and guilt-ridden Germanic world. You go to Cannes to have an affair. You go to Soho to get pissed on. The Germanics work hard and therefore have money. But the French, Italians and Spanish have money too. Latinos, of course, are not simply Latins, they're also Indians, which adds other cultural elements (namely, a different form of female power - more real, and to a degree vicious, than in traditional European society). Pure Anglo society is found in the dirt poor hillbilly backcountry of Arkansas or Kentucky. Pure Latino society is found in the barrios of San Diego or the Imperial Valley farming towns. Latinos don't turn into hillbillies. It's just not true. They don't assimilate in that way to the core culture. Given the choice, you would probably choose to live in the snakehandling Arkansas backcountry, because you have a closer real kinship in belief and base sentiment and cultural reference to those folks at the bottom of the culture. I look like a Swede, but I would choose the barrio, for exactly the same reasons that you would choose the hillbilly backcountry.
I don't like hillbillies. Just one of many assumptions you make without any facts to back them up.
If you had a choice between living in a shack in the Arkansas backcountry with the hilbillies or living in the Imperial Valiey colonias with the chollos, which would you do? This is the cultural reference Rorschak. It's a no brainer for both of us, and we're not going to be living in the same place.
Neither. It's a false hypothetical. Neither will happen.
Nor will Hispanic assimilation without changing the culture. Latin American civilization is already very largely like American civilization. The primary cultural differences between Spain and England derive from religion. The religious difference between the Spanish and the English has endured as ingrained cultural habits even after the religions have ceased to be dominant force. The same dynamic exists on our side of the globe between the old Spanish Empire and the old English Empire. As America became more Catholic throughout the late 19th and early 20th Century, the governmental policies shifted to reflect an increasingly Catholic mode of governance. The social safety net is a Latin Catholic concept, not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant one. More Latinos means more Catholicism, which means that the efforts of the Anglo Protestant conservatives to fray the social safety net and privatize it will fail, and what I wish to see will continue to advance in dominance. The New Deal could never be reversed, because the country was more and more and more Catholic. I agree with the New Deal. I hste abortion. I don't love gay marriage either, but I don't really care. Abortion is killing a baby, so I want to see it crammed further and further back towards conception. I do not believe that we will ever outlaw abortion - it is too convenient to too many people, and women are the voting majority - but I do believe that we can get the cut off for abortion to be before there is any sense of pain, before there is a brainwave pattern. That's not perfect, but it's good. The military needs to be smaller, and that money needs to be redeployed into universal health care and better education. The police forces also need to be a lot smaller, to leave people alone and have a lot fewer prisons. That means ending the war on drugs, legalizing pot, and treating - as opposed to punishing - drug addicts. Basically, everything has to change. The Anglo-Protestants are morally opposed to the actual changes themselves. The liberal Democrats care about some of the changes, but they are obsessed with powers and want racial quotas and a more authoritarian form of economic control and religious suppression - and they love to kill babies. So we need a new kind of politics; Socially conservative but economically liberal. More Hispanics equals more of that. National and international trends have been flowing my way since 1932, grosso modo. I don't see that stopping anytime soon. The further Catholicization of America through population growth and immigration will continue apace. And with Trump, the Anglo-Saxon country-club grip on the GOP has been significantly set back. So things look pretty good by my lights. If you want to call me all wrong and blind and out of touch, whatever, that's fine. I'm pretty happy with the circumstances, grosso modo.
Comments (41 - 44) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
"OK, I'm going to say something that probably won't win me too many friends around here, but nevertheless, I think we need to give credit where credit is due. Namely, a word of thanks is in order to Yertle the Turtle Mitch McConnell. Why? Because he held the line after the death of Scalia. I honestly didn't think he would. Oh, I knew he'd go through the motions but eventually, when the Democratic Noise Machine got loud enough, he'd cave. I expected to turn on CNN any morning to hear that he capitulated and voted to confirm Garland. But he DIDN'T!! Can you believe that? Mitch basically pulled his head into his shell, stood his ground and ran out the clock on the Obama administration. And now, ta-daaah, we have Gorsuch. Now of course the Democrats are frothing with outragey outrage about this, as if they wouldn't have done the same damn thing to an outgoing Republican president, so screw them. And yes, thank Trump for appointing Gorsuch, but thank McConnell for making his appointment possible. The positive rulings that will come out of the courts that will benefit our country greatly have only just begun."
#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed.
#3. To: IbJensen (#2)
MacIver News Service | July 20, 2015
[Madison, Wisc…] Four years after the passage of Act 10, the state’s largest teachers’ union has seen membership drop by more than half to less than 40,000 public school employees.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#5. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan, tpaine (#4)
#6. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#7. To: Liberator (#6)
(Edited)
Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018
It's just not as much fun until Trump shows up on Twitter with one of his trademark nanny-nanny-boo-boo wisecracks from the cheap seats.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Syllabus
Syllabus
Syllabus
Syllabus
#9. To: nolu chan (#8)
#10. To: Liberator (#6)
(Edited)
Congratulations to Maxine Waters, whose crazy rants have made her, together with Nancy Pelosi, the unhinged FACE of the Democrat Party. Together, they will Make America Weak Again! But have no fear, America is now stronger than ever before, and I’m not going anywhere!
#11. To: Tooconservative (#7)
(Edited)
...One of [Trump's] trademark nanny-nanny-boo-boo wisecracks from the cheap seats.
#12. To: nolu chan (#8)
Whatever may have been the case 41 years ago when Abood was decided, it is thus now undeniable that "labor peace" can readily be achieved through less restrictive means than the assessment of agency fees.
#13. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#11)
That is wildly funny, even more so if it is actually true. LOL Trump’s behavior in private meetings with several European leaders has caused not only offense but also fundamental confusion over whether the president of the United States remains committed to NATO, the liberal world order and the survival of the European Union, Biden said.
#14. To: Tooconservative, IbJensen (#3)
June 27, 2018 • 10:23AM
NEA Today
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
#16. To: Liberator (#11)
“Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election,” the president said on Twitter. “In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!” President Godfather.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#3)
I have to agree: the union officials probably crapped a brick over this ruling.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#16)
(Edited)
A few more years like this might just make up for at least one Bush.
#19. To: Hank Rearden (#18)
#20. To: Tooconservative, Hank Rearden (#19)
He had several good Tweet zingers today, a sure sign that he's happy.
#21. To: nolu chan, Liberator (#20)
Imagine the Democrats trying to do a rally like Trump does. Who would be their headliner? Nancy Pelosi? Maxine Waters? Chuck Schumer? Adam Schiff? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Hillary Clinton? Tim Kaine? Who have they got?
"One of my biggest critics, a slovenly man named Joe Crowley, got his ass kicked by a young woman who had a lot of energy."
#22. To: Tooconservative (#9)
I don't recall Alito getting to write any other major cases like this. Perhaps he has and I just didn't notice.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
#24. To: Tooconservative (#16)
#25. To: GrandIsland (#24)
I seriously doubt it was because of Crowley’s hate for Trump...this sand potato hates trump even more.
#26. To: nolu chan (#20)
"One of my biggest critics, a slovenly man named Joe Crowley, got his ass kicked by a young woman who had a lot of energy."
#27. To: CZ82 (#26)
That District has a poverty rate of almost 20% so I can see why she won, by promising more freebies.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)
It may be as simple as an energetic Hispanic woman managed to Hispander her way to a primary win in a majority-Hispanic district, which amounts to winning the seat in the fall election.
#29. To: Vicomte13, CZ82 (#28)
And that will make for a very different party than a white liberal party with minority black cheerleading.
#30. To: Tooconservative (#29)
(Edited)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
But the Hispanics cannot be dominated by whites or blacks, and they have a distinctively Catholic social character. The least pro-choice major ethnic group in America is Latinos.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#31)
I don't believe that's true now, even if it once was. Latin America has gone ex-Catholic, much as Europe has.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#31)
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
But no, the Latinos do not simply turn into whites in America.
#35. To: Tooconservative (#34)
Yes, they do. I'm not sure why you are in denial.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#34)
(Edited)
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
#38. To: Tooconservative (#37)
(Edited)
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
If you had a choice between living in a shack in the Arkansas backcountry with the hilbillies or living in the Imperial Valiey colonias with the chollos, which would you do?
#40. To: Tooconservative (#39)
Neither. It's a false hypothetical. Neither will happen.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]