Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed.

More like a 'fecal' crisis in their pants!

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.

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.

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.

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
Syllabus

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
Syllabus

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
Syllabus

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
Syllabus

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.

[...]

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.

...One of [Trump's] trademark nanny-nanny-boo-boo wisecracks from the cheap seats.

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.

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.

Wow.

A 41 year old decision to support coercive union thugs was overturned?

This is...YUGE.

Donald Corleone: "...don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever."

http://neatoday.org/2018/06/27/supreme-court-janus-decision/

June 27, 2018 • 10:23AM

Supreme Court Ruling in ‘Janus’ Deals Blow to Working Families

By John Rosales
NEA Today

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

See, that no-goodnik should have been nicer and more respectful to his President Godfather.

I have to agree: the union officials probably crapped a brick over this ruling.

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.

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?

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.

"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."

It was a great line. LOL

I don't recall Alito getting to write any other major cases like this. Perhaps he has and I just didn't notice.

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.

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.

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 seriously doubt it was because of Crowley’s hate for Trump...this sand potato hates trump even more.

I seriously doubt it was because of Crowley’s hate for Trump...this sand potato hates trump even more.

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.

"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."

That District has a poverty rate of almost 20% so I can see why she won, by promising more freebies.

That District has a poverty rate of almost 20% so I can see why she won, by promising more freebies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

And they value the concept of family even in the breach.

But no, the Latinos do not simply turn into whites in America.

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".

Yes, they do. I'm not sure why you are in denial.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Neither. It's a false hypothetical. Neither will happen.

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.

Neither. It's a false hypothetical. Neither will happen.

If I had a job for you right now - a dream job at high pay with perks - and you wanted it, I would put that question before you and tell you that you had to answer it if you wanted the job.

Then you could walk away from the job, or just answer it and be done with it.

I would live with the chollos.

And this is off-topic. The thread was about Janus, a landmark ruling that will pull the fangs of the labor unions, especially government unions.

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.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/fact-check-scorns-girl-bronx-socialist-icon- grew-up-8th-wealthiest-county/? utm_source=Email&utm_medium=CVBreaking&utm_campaign=ct- breaking&utm_content=libertyalliance